THE UNION OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC ASSOCIATIONSIN JAPAN
日本経済学会連合
The Union of National Economic Associations in Japan, established in 1950, celebrated its
50th anniversary in 2000, as the sole nationwide federation of associations of scholars and expertson economics, commerce, and business administration. In order to obtain membership an
association is subject to an examination of its academic work. As of 2005, the Union had amembership of 61 associations.
The aims and objectives of the Union are to support the scholarly activities of its member
associations and to promote academic exchanges both among members themselves, and between
Japanese and academic societies overseas.
The main activities of the Union are: (1) the
publication and distribution of academic material concerning Japanese economics and papers
presented by member scholars, (2) the sending of members to overseas conferences, (3) the holding
and supporting of international conferences in Japan, (4) providing financial assistance to member
associations who invite foreign scholars to Japan, and (5) collecting information on activities ofmember associations and the issuing of a news bulletin.
The Union published in 1974 Keizaigaku No Doko (The Trend in Japanese Economics), basedon a survey of economic studies undertaken in postwar Japan. A supplementary volume covering
Japanese economic studies after 1974 was published in 1982.
The Union and the International Economic Association (IEA) jointly held the Fifth World
Congress of the IEA in Tokyo from August 29 to September 3, 1978. The Union joined theInternational Institute of Public Finance in holding the Institute’s 37th Congress at Tokyo in
September 1981. The Union dispatched 20 member scholars to the Eighth World Congress of IEA
held in India in 1986. Most recently the Union successfully sponsored the IEA Tokyo Round Table
Conference on “Institutions in a New Dynamic Society” held between 15 and 17 September 1987,
and hosted the 1996 IEA Tokyo Round Table Conference between 16 and 19 December, on thetheme “The Institutional Foundation of Economic Development in East Asia.” To celebrate its
fiftieth anniversary, the Union held a special lecture meeting on May 25, 2000. Three lecturers wereinvited to speak on the theme, “The reforms that the 21st Century will bring to the world economy,
the Japanese economy, and Japanese management.”
The Union celebrated in 1980 the 30th anniversary of its founding by launching a variety ofactivities, including the publication of The Information Bulletin. Prof. Paul Snowden of Waseda
University acts as editorial adviser.

Address : Secretariat of the Union, c/o School of Commerce, Waseda University,
Nishiwaseda 1-6-1, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8050, Japan.

JAPAN ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATION
1. Brief History
The Japan Accounting Association (Nihon Kaikei Kenkyu Gakkai: JAA) is proud of
its nearly 70 years of history. The Association has the longest history and biggest scale
among the academic societies of accounting in Japan. Its origin was the Japan Societyof Accounting (Nihon Kaikei Gakkai), which was established in 1917 as the only
national organization involved in the science of accounting in Japan, whose members
were college or university professors and accounting practitioners, public or private. As
it was necessarily considered that an academic association should be organized mainly
by university professors of accounting, the Japan Accounting Association, JAA, wasestablished in 1937, following the systems of the American Association of University
Instructors in Accounting, which was founded in the United States in 1916 and has been
known as the American Accounting Association since 1936.
Recent popular topics of the Association are studies through empirical research,
Environmental Accounting, International Accounting Standards and Japanese
Accounting Systems, Going-Concern Auditing, Activity-based Costing, Target Costingand Web-based Research and Education.
The President of the Association is Hideyoshi ANDO (Hitotsubashi University), and
the Association members are 1,719 as of March 31, 2004.
2. Objectives, Activities, Membership and Administration
The objectives of the Association shall be to promote the mutual contact andfellowship among those who are engaged in the research of accounting for the purposeof the advancement and diffusion of the accounting research.
In order to accomplish the objectives mentioned, the Association shall conduct thefollowing activities：
1. Convention held once annually and Regional Meetings held twice or moreannually for the purpose of presenting and discussing the results of researches
conducted by the members.
2. Publication of Annual Bulletins, and Journals of the Japan Accounting
Association and other published materials relating to researches in accounting.
3. Establishment of committees relating to the uniformity of accounting terminology
and other researches in accounting.
4. Presentation of opinions relating to problems of accounting.
5. Commendation of distinguished results of the research in accounting.
6. Maintenance of relationships with other domestic and foreign academic

1

institutions and accounting associations.
7. Other activities deemed appropriate in order to accomplish the objectives of the
Association.
Those who are engaged in research in accounting at universities or colleges may be
admitted to the membership of the Association upon the approval of the Council. Others
may be admitted in accordance with the criteria provided separately.
The business of the Japan Accounting Association is managed by the following fivecategories of officers.
(1) President,(2) 16 or fewer Directors,(3) 70 or fewer Councilors,(4) 5 or fewer Secretaries, and(5) 2 Auditors.
The President and Councilors of the Association are elected from among the
Association membership every three years. Directors are elected from among theCouncilors. Secretaries are nominated by the President from among the Association
membership after the approval of Council, and auditors are selected from among the
Association membership with the approval of the general assembly. All of the officers’
terms are three years. Directors share and assume five divisions of duties: general affairs,
treasurer, membership, research and international relations.
The International Exchange Committee was established in 1999 to promote moreexchange between foreign accounting researchers and associations.
In 1948, ten years after the foundation of the Association, the office of the Presidentof the Japan Accounting Association was inaugurated.
Past Presidents are as follows:
1948-1963 Tetsuzo OHTA (Chuo University)
1963-1975
Kiyoshi KUROSAWA (Yokohama National University)
1976-1981
Shigeo AOKI (Waseda University)
1982-1984
Toshio IINO (Chuo University)
1985-1987
Kyojiro SOMEYA (Waseda University)
1988-1990
Seigo NAKAJIMA (Ferris Jogakuin)
1991-1993
Tetsuya MORITA (Hitotsubashi University)
1994-1996
Kiyomitsu ARAI (Waseda University)
1997-1999
Masaatsu TAKADA (Kyoto Gakuen University)
2000-2002

Ryuji TAKEDA (Osaka Gakuin University)23. Recent Research Activities
The national convention is held in the Kanto area (eastern part of Japan) and in the
Kansai area (western part of Japan) alternately year to year. Regional meetings are heldin six districts of Japan: Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kanto, Chubu, Kansai and Kyushu.
Convention dates, host universities and convention themes for the last ten years are
as follows:
54th, September 7-9, 1995, at Hiroshima Shudo University, Accounting Toward the
21st Century.
55th, September 13-15, 1996, at Waseda University, The New Paradigm of
Accounting Research and Education: In the Context of the Enlargement of Financial
and Security Markets.
56th, September 10-12, 1997, at Doshisha University, The Expansion of
Recognition in Accounting.
57th, September 9-11, 1998, at Meiji Gakuin University, The Paradigms of
Accounting Research.
58th, September 9-11, 1999, at Kyoto Gakuen University, Accounting in the 20th
Century: Past and Future.
59th, September 19-21, 2000, at Meiji University, Continuity and Change in
Accounting Research: at the Turn of the Century.
60th, September 20-22, 2001, at Osaka Gakuin University, The 21st Century; Present
and Future of Accounting; The Way of Theories Going on Today, Tomorrow and
Thereafter.
61st, September 11-13, 2002, at Musashi University, Internationalization of
Accounting and Problems in Accounting Research.
62nd, September 10-12, 2003, at Kinki University, Accounting Research in a
Changing Management Environment: the Succession of Accounting Research from the20th Century and the Search for a New Direction.
63rd, September 9-10, 2004, at Chuo University, Toward the Establishment of a New
Accounting Structure.
4. Journal and English Booklet
The Japan Accounting Association issued Accounting Progress, its first annual
journal, in 2000. On the other hand, Kaikei (Accounting), a monthly journal publishedby Moriyama Shoten (The Moriyama Book Store), has been working as the
Association’s journal since its foundation. Kaikei is published mainly in Japanese andcovers most of the papers presented at the national convention and regional meetings,

3

round-table discussions, other academic articles and official announcements of the
Association.
The Association has published an English booklet, Japanese ACCOUNTINGFORUM, to publicize its activities among foreign accounting professors andaccountants, annually since 1993. It is edited by the editorial board of the Association.
Past managing editors and present board staff are as follows:a) Past managing editors
1993-1997 Seigo NAKAJIMA (Ferris Jogakuin)
1998-2003 Nobuo KAMATA (Chubu University)b) Board staff (2004-)
Managing editor and editor...Michiharu SAKURAI (Senshu University)
Deputy managing editor and editor...Kazuo HIRAMATSU (Kwansei
Gakuin University)
Associate editors...Yukio SAKAGUCHI (Senshu University)
Hironao IWATA (Senshu University)
The contents of Japanese ACCOUNTING FORUM, 2004 edition are:Preface
Reports
2003 National Convention
The Main Theme: Accounting Research in Changing Management
Environment – the Succession of Accounting Research from the 20th Century
and the Search for a New Direction.
Plenary Sessions
GroupⅠ The Succession of Accounting Theory Study and the
Search for a New Direction
GroupⅡ Issues on Accounting Institutions
Special Committees
Comprehensive Research on the Adoption of International AccountingStandards
Management Accounting for Value-based Organizational Restructuring
External Auditing and Corporate GovernanceStudy Groups
The Contemporary Accounting Structure – Toward Construction of
New Accounting System―
Comparative Study of Plan Comptable Général for Each Country4

Study of Management Accounting for Business Restructuring
Regional Reports
Hokkaido Region, Tohoku Region, Kanto Region, Chubu Region,
Kansai Region, Kyushu Region
5. Liaison OfficeMoriyama Shoten (The Moriyama Book Store) works as the liaison office. Pleasecontact the Association through the store.
The Japan Accounting Association c/o Moriyama Shoten, Hayashi Building, 1-10
Kanda Nishiki-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-0054, Japan(Katsunobu MANDAI, Hitotsubashi University)

5

BUSINESS HISTORY SOCIETY OF JAPAN1. General Description of the Society
Founded in November 1964, the Business History Society of Japan (Keieishi
Gakkai) celebrated its fortieth anniversary in 2004. The academic association
originated in the idea that entrepreneurs and business enterprises, even large ones, canmake positive and dynamic contributions to the economy and society. This plain
statement sounds self-evident and even naïve, but in the intellectual heritage in Japan
where the Marxist philosophy of economic determinism still exercised criticalinfluence, it actually contained significant implications for the basic directions ofresearch. Up to the 1980s the intellectual weight of Alfred Chandler remained vitallystrong in the research of business history in Japan, so that the major concern amongscholars was the development of large modern enterprises in Japan. Given the
Chandlerian framework they employed the comparative approach, deliberate or
implicit, in that the ultimate target of research was to analyze the common features
among and significant differences between the advanced industrial economies,
particularly the United States, and the latecoming Japan. In the 1990s, however, theoverall interest of business historians, and business scholars in general, for that matter,became more diverse, and the developmental contributions of individual entrepreneurs
and small and medium-sized enterprises became a popular subject of scholarship.
With its membership of around 900 people, the Business History Society of Japan
has developed into one of the largest and most influential business historyorganizations in the world. As such it has long been engaged in several significant
ventures in terms of advancing research in business history and related fields, andpublicizing research outcomes in academic meetings and publications in Japanese andEnglish. Each fall the Society holds an annual meeting in which selected individual
presentations as well as several panel and general discussions attract many of its
members. It maintains several local workshops in which numerous papers arepresented and discussed. The biannual Fuji Conference in Business History is still
alive and strong and appeals to international scholarship. In commemorating its
fortieth anniversary, then, the Society has embarked upon new publications such as thetwo-volume set of Fundamental Knowledge in Business History (in Japanese) and theforthcoming multivolume series in Japanese Business History and upgrading some of
its activities such as the reorganization of two major journals, Japan Business History
Review (in Japanese), and Japanese Research in Business History (in English).

6

2. Annual National Meetings and Local Workshops
The Business History Society of Japan has held annual meetings since thefoundation of the academic organization in 1964, and it stands as the most significant
occasion of research presentations in business history in Japan. Each fall a university
around Japan volunteers to function as host of the meeting, which is designed topopularize research in business history in as many universities as possible. The hostinstitution selects a common theme of the meeting and organizes the session around thespecific topic. The research committee of the Society chooses the subject of panel
discussions and screens the individual proposals that are openly submitted to thecommittee. Usually 20 to 40 presentations are made each year. The following brief
description of the annual meeting of the last six years exhibits the general trends ofscholarly research interest among Japanese business historians.
The 2000 Annual Meeting at Seijo University, Tokyo
Common theme: The current state and problems of teaching business history: In the
United States, Europe, and Japan. Organized by Fumikatsu KUBO, Chuo University.
Panel discussion I: Business history of the venture business. Organized by Kazuomi
YAMAGUCHI, Seijo University.
Panel discussion II: Proposals for business history of the European Union. Organized
by Terushi HARA, Waseda University.
Individual presentations: 22
The 2001 Annual Meeting at Osaka University
Common theme: Fifty years after the reorganization of the Japanese electric powerindustry. Organized by Matao MIYAMOTO, Osaka University.
Panel discussion I: Business development through diversification at a medium-sized
merchant house in modern Japan: The case of the Hiroumis in Kaizuka, Osaka.
Organized by Satoshi NAKANISHI, Nagoya University.
Panel discussion II: Americanization and personnel administration: Dialogue between
business history and labor history. Organized by Tsuguyoshi UENO, Kyoto Sangyo
University.
Individual presentations: 30
The 2002 Annual Meeting at Kokugakuin University
Common theme: The task of business history at a time of changes: Is the Americanmodel universal? Organized by Kinzaburo SUNAGA, Kokugakuin University.
Panel discussion I: The investment, personnel, and decision-making at the Mitsui

7zaibatsu: In the context of corporate governance. Organized by Tsunehiko YUI, Bunkyo
Women’s College, and You KIKKAWA, Mitsui Bunko.
Panel discussion II: The international comparison of the formation of supplier systems
in the automobile industry. Organized by Hirofumi UEDA, Osaka City University.
Individual presentations: 27
The 2003 Annual Meeting at Kyoto University
Common theme: The historical reevaluation of the competitive dynamics between
large and small enterprises. Organized by Takashi HIKINO, Kyoto University.
Panel discussion I: Governance structure, investment behavior, and performance ofJapanese enterprises before World War II. Organized by Hideaki MIYAJIMA and Nao
SAITO, Waseda University.
Panel discussion II: The “failure” and “rebirth” of enterprises in business history.
Organized by Takao SHIBA, Kyoto Sangyo University.
Individual presentations: 28
The 2004 Annual Meeting at Hirosaki University
Common theme: The transformation of customer orientation in business management:
The creation of consumption and demand through presentations and proposals.
Organized by Toshiyuki SHINOMIYA, Hirosaki University.
Special address: The cigarette business in Asia, Europe and the USA, 1900-1950:
Why was the whole world developed? Presented by Leslie HANNAH, University ofTokyo.
Individual presentations: 20
The 2005 Annual Meeting at Kobe University
Common theme: The Japanese investment by multinational enterprises and theirformation of organizational capabilities after World War II. Organized by Tetsuya
KUWAHARA, Kobe University.
Panel discussion I: Historical dynamics of the minority business in Japan. Organized
by HAN Jaehyang, Tokyo University, Takashi HIKINO and Naoto KAGOTANI, Kyoto
University.
Panel discussion II: Current state of the research in trading companies in Japan.
Organized by Masatoshi AMANO, Kobe University.
Panel discussion III: The complexity of production, distribution, and consumption in
the modern sugar-refining industry: Cooperation and competition around the Sugar
Refiners Association. Organized by Fumikatsu KUBO, Chuo University.

8Special address: Past and present of Japanese management. Presented by JamesABEGGLEN, Boston Consulting Group.
Individual presentations: 17
In addition to the annual national meeting the Business History Society of Japan
maintains a network of workshops around Japan. In 2004/2005 they consisted of thefour major ones in Kanto, Kansai, Chubu, and Kyushu, and 50 presentations weremade in total.
3. The International Conference on Business History
Given the strong international context that Japanese business history initiated in
the 1960s, the Business History Society of Japan has always been actively engaged inintellectual exchanges with business scholars of other nations. The most visible symbolof this outward attitude of the society has been the scholarly meeting that became
commonly known as the Fuji Conference. In the cozy setting of the Fuji ConferenceCenter at the foot of Mt. Fuji, international as well as Japanese scholars gather together
to have an opportunity of intensive discussions. The outcome of the conference has
been published by Oxford University Press. The recent themes of the conference andthe resulting volumes of the entire OUP series published to date are as follows:
The 1994 conference volume
Haruhito SHIOMI and Kazuo WADA (eds.), Fordism Transformed: The Development of
Production Methods in the Automobile Industry. Published in 1996.
The 1995 conference volume
Takao SHIBA and Masahiro SHIMOTANI (eds.), Beyond the Firm: Business Groups inInternational and Historical Perspective. Published in 1996.
The 1996 conference volume
Hideaki MIYAJIMA, Takeo KIKKAWA, and Takashi HIKINO (eds.), Policies forCompetitiveness: Comparing Business-Government Relationships in the Golden Age of
Capitalism. Published in 1999.
The 1997 conference volume
Konosuke OKADA and Minoru SAWAI (eds.), Small Firms, Large Concerns: The
Development of Small Business in Comparative Perspective. Published in 1999.

9

The 1998 conference volume
Michael J. LYNSKEY and Seiichiro YONEKURA (eds.), Entrepreneurship andOrganization: The Role of the Entrepreneur in Organizational Innovatio. Published in
2002.
The 2000 conference volume
Makoto KASUYA (ed.), Coping with Crisis: International Financial Institutions in theInterwar Period. Published in 2003.
In addition to the Fuji Conference, the Business History Society of Japan has
occasionally hosted international scholarly exchanges such as the International
Conference on Business History of Insurance, the German-Japanese Conference on
Business History, the Anglo-Japanese Conference on Business History, and theFrench-Japanese Conference on Business History. In November 2005, furthermore, theSociety held the first meeting of the Korean-Japanese Conference on Business History
in Seoul. Through these venues the society further develops research on businesshistory on the global scale.
4. Japan Business History Review (Keiei Shigaku) and Japanese Research in BusinessHistory
Since 1966 the Japan Business History Review (Keiei Shigaku) has functioned as
the primary publication of the Business History Society of Japan. This quarterly
publication in the Japanese language carries articles, research notes, conference
records, book reviews, and miscellaneous announcements related to the broad field of
business history. Starting in 2002, the Japan Business History Review adopted the new
system of peer blind reviews in which two outside reviewers evaluate each submitted
manuscript based on academic merits only. An editorial committee that consists ofgroups of specialists chooses the reviewers and then carefully examines the submitted
evaluations before the committee makes a decision related to publishing or rejecting aparticular article. The strict reviewing process will surely raise the scholarly level of
published pieces and enhance the reputation of the journal further. In 2005,
furthermore, as a part of the projects that celebrate the fortieth anniversary of theBusiness History Society of Japan, the Japan Business History Review renewed itself
starting with the first issue of volume 40. It is now published by Yushodo Press, awell-respected publisher in Tokyo, and the size of the journal was enlarged toaccommodate longer articles with larger tables and charts. These physical alterations
will enhance the journal in terms of intellectual contents as well as visual readability.

10The Business History Society of Japan also modified the format for its
English-language annual. It has a new title in Japanese Review of Business History,
which has been changed from Japanese Yearbook on Business History that was
initiated in 1984. The latest five volumes of the Japanese Yearbook on BusinessHistory featured the following topics.
Volume 17 (2000): The Overseas Activities of General Trading Companies
Volume 18 (2001): Industrial Clusters
Volume 19 (2002): Entrepreneurship in Meiji Japan
Volume 20 (2003): The Automobile Industry in JapanThe volume 21 published in 2004 has a special feature on the evolution of
traditional industries in Japan that covers the three important indigenous industries insoy sauce, sake, and pottery. It exhibits a new outlook and content, which, besides thecustomary translation of selected Japanese-language articles, will encourage moreinternational contributions on business history fields.
5. Fundamental Knowledge in Business History (Keieishi no Kiso Chishiki) and theforthcoming multivolume series in Japanese business history
Another project of the fortieth anniversary of the Business History Society ofJapan is the publication of a two-volume set, Fundamental Knowledge in BusinessHistory (Keieishi no Kiso Chishiki), that came out in late 2004 and early 2005 in
Japanese. Basically a historical encyclopedia, the publication comprehends all the
major events that have contributed to the development of entrepreneurship, individual
businesses, industrial society, and economic growth of various nations and continents.
The first volume contains Japanese topics, while the second covers all other nations.
Aiming to avoid geographical centralism in one form or the other, the international
volume covers not only North America and Europe, but it also reaches Asia, Latin
America, and further. These two publications are intended to be a broad supplement touniversity courses in business and economic history, management science, andeconomic development.
The popularity of Fundamental Knowledge in Business History has encouraged
the editors and authors to expand the Japanese part into several volumes of the longer
full articles that will cover the most significant topics on the business developments inJapanese history. Minerva Shobo became interested in this project, and the concrete
format and substance of the volumes are now being discussed between the editors of
the series and the publisher. This large venture will surely further research on andeducation in business history in Japan.
(Takashi HIKINO, Kyoto University)

11

JAPAN SOCIETY FOR COMMODITY SCIENCE
1. History and Activities of the Society
The Japan Society for Commodity Science assumes as its historical basis anassociation founded in 1935 by commodity scholars at commercial universities andcolleges throughout the country. A national convention was held nine times before theSecond World War. The activities of the Society were discontinued between 1941 and1949; however, they recommenced on April 25, 1950 and have continued since then.
Activities are as follows; (1) Regular issue of the journal Studies on Commodities, (2)Holding of national conventions, (3) Member participation in IGWT (Internationale
Gcsellschaft für Warenkunde und Technologie) and holding of international conferences,(4) Two regional sections, (5) Execution of training courses for teachers in charge ofcommodity-related subjects at commercial high schools, etc.
2. The Progress of Research in Current Commodity Study
The activities of this Society started from research presentations on a free subject at
the national convention. Then a symposium on a previously decided theme was added in
1963. Also, conferences for school education concerning commodity science have been
held since the 1955 national convention.
The themes of the symposium have been as follows.
1963: Various Problems Concerning Quality Display
1964: Quality and Fineness
1968: Methodology of Commodity Science in the Present Age
1969: International Competitive Power of Commodities
1970: Diversification of Commodities
1971: Pollution and Commodities
1972: Value in Use and Quality of Commodities
1973: Quality and Price
1974: The Subjects of Commodity Science
1975: Theory and Practice of Commodity Science
1976: Commodities and Safety
1977: For a Systematic Methodology of Commodity Science
1978: Subjects and Methodology of Commodity Science
1979: Commodities and Resources
1980: The Social Role of Commodity Science
1981: Commodities and Packaging

12

1982: Thoughts on the Characteristics of Commodities from the Phenomena of Markets
1983: Some Aspects of Formation of Commodities
1984: Conflct in International Dealings of Commodities
1985: Commodity Science and Commodity Testing
1986: Regional Character and Commodities
1988: The Development of Commodity Science Today
1989: Commodity Science Today, Problems and Prospects
1990: The Relation Between an Economy Including Service or Software andCommodity Science
1991: Merchandise Systems for the Twenty-First Century
1992: Production and Circulation of Commodities in East Asia and the Problem of
Economic Blocks
1993: Current Problems of Commodities, and the Effect of the Commodity-Making
Mechanism
1994: Originality and the Social Meaning of Commodity Science
1995: Industria1 Society of the 21st Century and Market Creation
1996: Approach of Commodity Science to Industrial, Structura1 Revolution
1997: Environmental Change in Business Society and Problems of Commodities
1998: The Globalization of Markets and Commodities
1999: Commodity Study−from Past to Future
2000: The New Stream of Commodity Study in the 21st Century
2001: The 21st Century from the Viewpoints of Technology and Commodities
2002: Interdisciplinary Theory about the Formation of the Recycling of Commodities
2003: Quality-Indication in the Age of Self-Responsibility
2004: New Development of Branded Goods in Local Areas and in Producing Districts
2005: The Reconsideration of Commodity Science in the 21st Century
The Society’s members have always been concerned with the identity of commodity
science, as the themes of the above-mentioned symposia show. It can be said that a long
history of trial and error, despite some insufficiencies, has produced significant results.
Although progress has sometimes been slow, and a lot of time has been taken up withpresenting hypotheses and developing analytical tools, the Society has persistently
moved forward to the practical application of commodities research.
Commodity education and methods of commodity study apart, the focus of researchhas been on quality of commodities and the expansion of the commodity concept,
followed by maintenance of the environment and consumer behavior.

13

3. Current High Schoo1 Commodity Education
To activate commodity education chiefly at commercial high schools, a research
conference for commodity education was established. This has been held every year
since 1955. At first, presentations were in the form of a free subject, but since 1971, a
conference title has been announced in advance. Conference titles have been as follows.
1971: Commodity Education and Pollution
1972: For New Commodity Education
1973: Recognition of Commodities and New Commodity Education
1974: Commodity Education at School and Its Relation to the Theory of Commodity
Science1975: Commodity Education and the Commodity Department
1976: What is Taught in “Commodities?”
1977: Problem Areas of Commodity Education and Appropriate Regulations
1978: Considering the Subject of Commodities in Accordance with the Next Study
Guidelines
1979: The New Study Guidelines and Commodities as a Subject
1980: Future Contents of the Subject of Commodities in Commodity Education and
How to Deal with Them
1981: How to Carry out Case Studies and Guidance based on the New Guidelines
1982: On Case Study Again
1983: The Significance of Practice and Experiments in Commodities
1984: Class Development of Import and Export Commodities
1985: Modern Problems of Commodity Education
1986: Restructuring Commodity Education
1988: National Life and Commodity Education
1989: Position of Commodities in High School Commercial Education
1990: Searching for the Activation of Commodity Education
1991: Development of Problem Research and Commodities
1992: Trade Commodities and Eating Habits
1993: Class Development in Commodities and Related Subjects
1994: Local Commodity Education in the Future
1995: Ideals and Practice of New Commodity Education
1996: How is Commodity Knowledge Put to Use in Commodity Education?
1997: Local Areas and Practice of Commodity Education
1998: Commodity Education in New Commercial Education
1999: Environmenta1 Education in Commodity Education
2000: Direction of Commodity Education in the 21st Century

14

2001: Region-Related Commodity and Business Education
2002: Teaching Methods in the Area of Distribution and Business
2003: Contents Development for the Vitalization of Commodity Education
2004: Example of Education Practice for the New Subject; the Bases of Business
As the above-mentioned titles show, activation of commodity education is the majoraim.
The Society’s members propose, as a means to achieve that aim, that commodity
education should be included in the national curriculum.
4. Recent Annual National Conventions(1) The 49th National Convention
The 49th National Convention was held on May 23 and 24, 1998 at Kanto Gakuin
University.
The Globalization of Markets and Commodities was set as the theme of the
Symposium, which was chaired by Takao IWASAWA (Kanto Gakuin University).
The following three presentations were made: 1) Koichi SHIMOKAWA (Hosei
University), “Market Competition of Automobile Companies and Globalization”, 2)Takahisa FUJITA (J. D. Powers Co. Asia Pacific C.E.O.), “Globalization of Consumers−Comparative Research on Japan and the U.S.A.”, 3) Masahiro IWASHITA (Doshisha
University), “Globalization of External Diseconomies and Regulations ofCommodities”.
(2) The 50th National Convention
The 50th National Convention was held on May 21 and 22, 1999 at Senshu
University. Commodity Study―from Past to Future, for Dynamic Change was set as thetheme of the Symposium with two parts. The keynote lecture in the first part was given
by Jo TANAKA (Chukyo University) under the title “Social Scientific Factors in
Commodity Science and Analysis of Commodities”. He insisted that a combination ofsocial science and natural science is needed for commodity science and also theviewpoint of consumers must be taken into account.
The following two presentations were made: 1) Kazuhiko SAKAIRI (Bunkyo
University), “The Characteristics of the Commodity Factor”, 2) Yoshio SEKI (Kagawa
University), “Commodity Study in the Relation of Consumer and Commodity”.
The keynote lecture in the second part was given by Naoto ONZO (Waseda
University) under the title “Marketing Innovation and Commodity Study”. He insisted
that the thinking about commodities in marketing must focus on human experience ofcommodities.

15

The following two presentations were made: 1) Shiro KURIHARA (Hitotsubashi
University), “The Recycling Economy and Self-Innovating Machines”, 2) Satoshi
KANBARA (Kobe University of Commerce), “The Capabilities of Commodity Study inview of a Comprehensive Approach”.
(3) The 51st Nationa1 Convention
The 51st Nationa1 Convention was held on June 2 and 3, 2000 at Tohoku Gakuin
University. The theme of the symposium was The New Stream of Commodity Study inthe 21st Century. The Coordinator was Toshimi TANAKA (Sophia University).
After his lecture, the following four presentations were given: 1) Yoko KENMOKU(Senshu University), “The Innovational Viewpoint of Commodity Study in a Society
with Fewer Children and More Older People”, 2) Yasuhiro YAMAMOTO (Chiba
University of Commerce), “A New Study of High-Technologica1 Commodities”, 3)
Junichi YOSHIDA (Kobe University), “A New Viewpoint of the Quality of Service”, 4)
Kunihiro TAKARADA (Aichi Gakuin University), “A New Course of Commodity Studyof Market Innovation in Relation to Ecologica1 Change”.
(4) The 52nd National Convention
The 52nd Nationa1 Convention was held on June l and 2, 2001 at Kinki University.
The theme of the symposium was The 21st Century from the Viewpoints of Technology
and Commodities. The coordinator was Hiroshi KATAOKA (Hitotsubashi University).
After his lecture, three presentations were given: 1) Yoshifumi ISHlZAKI (Kanto
Gakuin University), “A Theory about the Commodity Development Strategy of Firms”,
2) Yoshio SEKI (Kagawa University), “The Theory and Praxis of the Safety ofCommodities”, 3) Mitsuharu MITSUI (Kobe University of Commerce), “A Comparative
Theory of the West (Euro-Americans) and the East (Japan) about Technology.”(5) The 53rd National Convention
The 53rd National Convention was held on May 31 and June 1, 2002 at Chiba
University of Commerce. The theme of the symposium was Interdisciplinary Theory
about the Formation of the Recycling of Commodities. The coordinator was Takao
IWASAWA (Kanto Gakuin University).
The keynote lecture was given by Norihiro MITSUHASHI (Chiba University ofCommerce) under the title “the Conditions of construction for the Recycling Society”.
The following five presentations were made: 1) Toru FUKUSHIMA (NKK TorinikensuCo.), “Improving the recycling of home electric appliances”, 2) Shin KAMIKO (Chiba
Prefecture Environment and Life Department), “The Trial for Recycling of Commodites
in Chiba Prefecture”, 3) Junko FUKUDA (Josai International University), “A proposal for
Recycling of Commodities in the Viewpoint of Distribution and Consumption”, 4)
Toshiaki IZEKI (Chiba University of Commerce), “Recycling Business and Green

16

Marketing”, 5) Shiro KURIHARA (Hitotsubashi University), “The Formation of
Recycling Type Commodities and Commodity Science”.
(6) The 54th National Convention
The 54th National Convention was held on June 7 and 8, 2003 at Sophia University.
The theme of the symposium was Quality-Indication in the Age of Self-Responsibility.
The coordinator was Kunihiro TAKARADA (Aichi Gakuin University). After his lecture,
the following three presentations were given. 1) Katsuharu YOSHIKOSHI (the center offoods industry), “The consideration of self-responsibility related to the indication andsafety of commodities”, 2) Masae WADA (Shufu-rengokai, the Association ofHousewives), “The realization of correct indication of quality is the resposibility of thegovernment”, 3) Yoko KENMOKU (Senshu University), “The value of safety ofcommodities and the market function in the dangerous society”.
(7) The 55th National Convention
The 55th National Convention was held on May 29 and 30, 2004 at Kagawa
University. The theme of the symposium was New Development of Branded Goods in
Local Areas and in Producing Districts. The coordinator was Yoshio SEKI (Kagawa
University). After his lecture, the following four presentations were given: 1) Hidemi
INOUE (Inoue Commercial Environment Design Co.), “Branded goods practice in local
areas”, 2) Takao IWASAWA (Val Laboratory), “Branded goods theory in local areas”, 3)
Teruo SUWA (Merikenya Co.), “Branded goods practice in the producing district”, 4)
Mitsuharu MITSUI (Kobe Prefectural University) “Branded goods theory in the
producing district”.
(8) The 56th National Convention
The 56th National Convention was held on June 18 and 19, 2005 at Hitotsubashi
University. The theme of the symposium was The Reconsideration of Commodity
Science in the 21st Century. The coordinator was Shiro KURIHARA (Hitotsubashi
University). The keynote speech was given by Yoshifumi ISHIZAKI (Kanto Gakuin
University) under the title “The Past and Future of Commodity Science”.
After his lecture, three presentations were made: 1) Takao YONEYAMA (Hitotsubashi
University), “Collaboration with Commodity Science from the Viewpoint of Insurance”,
2) Shinya NAKADA (Kanagawa University), “Collaboration with Commodity Sciencefrom the Viewpoint of Logistics”, 3) Satoshi KANBARA (Senshu University)“Collaboration with Commodity Science from the Viewpoint of Consumer Education”.
The reason for these three presentations was the aim of this Symposium, which was
how to collaborate with Commodity Science.

175. Recent IGWT Symposia(1) The12th IGWT Symposium
The l2th IGWT Symposium was held on Sept. 5-11, 1999 at Poznan University of
Economics and the Naval Academy in Gdynia, Poland.
The common theme of the symposium was Quality for the 21st Century, including
the following seven topics:
1）Quality and Marketing2）Quality of Life
3）Quality from the Ecological Viewpoint4）Quality of Commodities
5）Quality Management Systems
6）Trends of Study and Research7）Packaging(2) The 13th IGWT Symposium
The 13th IGWT Symposium was held on Sept. 2-8, 2001 at the University of
Maribor, Slovenia.
The common theme of the symposium was Commodity Science in a Global Quality
Perspective, including the following topics:- Technology and technological development: technological innovations, key andgeneric technologies- Technology management: technology transfer, technological forecasting, technology
assessment, technological analysis- General aspects of quality, quality management- Methods / tools for total quality management- Quality of commodities (technical and other products, food products)- Quality and marketing- Sustainable development and environmental management(3) The 14th IGWT Symposium
The l4th IGWT Symposium was held on Aug. 25-29, 2004 in Beijing, China.
The common theme of the symposium was Focusing on a New Century ofCommodity-Trade-Environment.
The next biennial internationa1 Symposium of the IGWT will be held in Vienna inAustria.

18

6. The Basic Frame of New Commodity Research and Commodity Education
So far, the range of commodities treated by commodity science has been material
commodities.
However, the range has now come to include intangible commodities of service,software, and information, etc. besides material commodities. Research and education incommodities which can provide a solution to problems concerning commodities insociety are strongly needed. Both have different dimensions, but both are mutuallyrelated and supplement each other. This Society is fortunately in a situation to aid thatessential relationship, and its efforts are sure to continue in the future.
(Yoshifumi ISHlZAKI, Kanto Gakuin University)

19

JAPAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF
MANAGEMENT (JACSM)
1. General Description
The Japan Association for the Studies of Socialist Enterprise was founded in 1976.
Its founding members included Susumu KAIDO (Kobe Univ.), Soichiro GIGA (Osaka
City Univ.), Kunio OSHIMA (Aoyama Gakuin Univ.), and Gisaburo SASAKAWA (Osaka
City Univ.). The Association changed its name from the Japan Association for theStudies of Socialist Enterprise to the Japan Association for the Comparative Studies ofManagement (JACSM) in 1994.
The Association’s activities currently cover all the areas of Comparative
Management Systems including business economics, business administration, businesshistory, corporate governance, business ethics, social issues in management (“businessand society”), enterprise systems in transition (Russia, China, Hungary, Poland,
Bulgaria), accounting, nonprofit organizations and cooperative associations. The
Association plays a central role in promoting academic research in comparative studies
of business management not only in its uniqueness but also in its coverage. The
membership consists of 206 academic researchers.
The Association is managed by the General Meeting, a Board of Directors (20elected members), an Executive Committee, and a few Secretaries. The President iselected by the Directors. The term of office for the Directors is two years, with a limit of
two consecutive terms. The Presidents have been the following members, since thefoundation of the Association: Susumu KAIDO (Kobe Univ., 1976-78), Kunio OSHIMA(Aoyama Gakuin Univ., 1978-80), Gisaburo SASAKAWA (Osaka City Univ., 1980-82),
Masatsugu MIYOKAWA (Yokohama City Univ., 1982-84), Soichiro GIGA (Osaka City
Univ., 1984-86), Akira HAYASHI (Ryukoku Univ., 1986-88), Minoru NAGASUNA (Kansai
Univ., 1988-90), Akira MORI (Meiji Univ., 1990-92), Kyoichi FUTAGAMI (Waseda Univ.,
1992-94), Shoichi OHASHI (Kansai Univ., 1994-96), Shigeo AYUZAWA (Chuo Univ.,
1996-98), Masaki NAKADA (Ritsumeikan Univ., 1998-2000), Shozaburo SAKAI (ChuoUniv., 2000-02), Keiji IDE (Nagasaki Univ., 2002-04), Nobuyuki KADOWAKI (Shiga
Univ., 2004-2006).
The main activities of the Association consist of holding an annual meeting inJapan and publishing the Journal of the Association for Comparative Studies ofManagement in Japanese once a year.

20

2. Publications
The Association publishes its annual journal in Japanese, the Journal of the
Association for Comparative Studies of Management. The journal has published volume
29 in 2005. It covers articles, appropriate papers, and book reviews.
The Editorial Board consists of the Editor, Fumitaka IWANAMI (Komazawa Univ.)
and three Co-editors (Jun MAEDA, Issei NAKANISHI, and Takashi HOSOKAWA), and four
Associate Editors (Yo ANDO, Atsushi FUJIWARA, Masao AOKI, Atsushi SAITO, Katsumi
FUJIWARA).
The journals for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 carried the following contents.
(1) The journal for 2002 (Vol. 26) carried the following contents.
Globalization, Comparative Management and Market Economy
Globalization and Nonprofit Cooperative Organizations in the World (Yasuo
KAKURAI), New Economy and Globalization (Keiji NATSUME), Globalization andEnterprises in Transition Economies (Shozaburo SAKAI), Global Environment Problems,and Governments, Firms and Citizens (Jun KAWAHARA), Market Economy andSustainability (Takao NUKI), Business Ethics, and the Study and Education ofManagement (Nobuo TSUNO).
The Economy and Management of Different Countries
International Commercial Arbitration in Russia: Its History and Characteristics(Ikko YOSHIDA), Currency Boards in Transition Economies: The Bulgarian Experience
1997-2000 (Dimiter IALNAZOV), A Comparative Study of Small and Medium SizeEnterprises in Japan and China (GU Ye), Corporate Governance in China: The Role ofBanks as External Monitors (ZHANG Tao), Transformation of the Economic System andReforms of State-owned Enterprises in China (SHI Wei).
(2) The journal for 2003 (Vol. 27) carried the following contents.
Sustainable Society and Business Management
Sustainable Society and Enterprises (Shuji KOSUGI), Sustainable Development ofJapanese Economy and Role of Local Business (Toshiaki CHOKKI), Subjects andProspects of Modern Business Management (Hiroshi INOUE), Society and PublicEnterprise Sector Reform in India (Somahiko TATEYAMA), Sustainability of the Russian
Enterprise System (Satoshi MIZOBATA), The Environmental Strategy of Japanese
Automobile Manufacturers (Shigeki AOYAMA).
The Economy and Management of Different Countries
Evolution of Social Capital and International Business (Masakazu IMAI), CapitalMarket and Corporate Governance in Germany (Ken MATSUDA), The Role of Research

21and Development of Typical Firms in the 20th Century (Masao AOKI), Organization
Design of the State’s owned Enterprise in China (Masashi MITA).
(3) The journal for 2004 (Vol. 28) carried the following contents.
Sustainable Society and the Tasks of the Comparative Studies of Management“Sustainable Society” and Comparative Business Administration (Koki SUZUKI),A New Business Model for Sustainable Development (Kappei HIDAKA), Comparative
Study of Corporate Reforms (Nobuyuki DEMISE), Business and Society under the Putin
Regime in Russia: An Outlook for the “Russian Business System” (Shizuko KATO).
Articles On Traditional Chinese Thinking about Management: Outline, Significance,
and Characteristics (Yasuyuki YANABA), Urban Public Pension Reform in China (Zhang
LI).
(4) The journal for 2005 (Vol. 29) carried the following contents.
Sustainable Society and the Development of the Comparative Studies ofManagement
Implementation of Corporate Governance in American Corporations (Keiji
NATSUME), Corporate Society and Corporate Governance in Japan (Nobuyuki DEMISE),
Sustainable Society and a Comparative Study on Management in Japan and Germany(Akira HAYASHI), Codes of Conduct and Business Ethics of Transnational Corporations(Shintaro AKAHANE), Sustaining Business Society in France (Yasuyuki YANABA),
Energy-Environmental Problems and Stabilization in Northeast Asia (Yutaka MORIOKA),
The Actual Situation and Issues of Corporate Governance in China: Characteristics andSubjects in the Outside Monitoring System ( LIU Yong-Ge).
Article Chinese Characteristics of Transforming State Enterprises into Joint-Stock
Companies (Nobuhiko NAKAYA), Characteristics of Islamic Management andSustainable Development (Hideko SAKURAI), The Capital Market and Corporate
Governance in Bulgaria (Dimiter IALNAZOV).
3. 2005 Annual Meeting (Celebration of 30th Anniversary)
The 2005 annual meeting was held at Ryukoku University, Kyoto on May 13 and14. The chairpersons of the organizing committee and program committee were Keiji
NATSUME (Ryukoku Univ.) and Masaki HAYASHI (Chuo Univ.), respectively. In theregular sessions, 19 papers were presented altogether.
The title of the main session was Business and Society: What are the Problems
and Methodology for the Comparative Studies of Management, Three papers were
presented as follows: “Market Economy and Social Safety: Social Policies under the EU

22

Enlargement” by Takumi HORIBAYASHI (Kanazawa Univ.), “Perspectives of Analyzing
Business in Society” by Kanji TANIMOTO (Hitotsubashi Univ.), “The tasks of Business
Management and Corporate Social Responsibility” by Yoshinari MARUYAMA (TohoGakuen Univ.). In addition, three discussants participated in this session.
The Association celebrated its 30th anniversary in 2005 and held an international
symposium, in addition to the 2005 Annual Meeting. The chairperson of symposium
organizing committee was Hiroshi TANAKA (Ritsumeikan Univ.). The title of theinternational symposium was “New Frontiers of Comparative Studies of Management”.
The aims and meanings of the International symposium is as follows:
The predecessor of our JSCSM was established in 1976 at Kobe University. The
International Symposium “New Frontiers of Comparative Studies of Management”
celebrated its 30th Anniversary. The Annual Conference of JCSCM in 2005 reviewed
our past scientific studies of management for 30 years as well. The Symposium andConference analyzed contemporary and challenging theoretical and practical issues of
the comparative studies of management at the end of the 20th and the 21st century.
More than one decade after the collapse of the Soviet type of socialism and theclosure of the Cold War as a conflict between the “socialist” camp and the “capitalist”
camp have made us realize the growing significance of studying divergent forms ofmanagement of firms which are doing business in diversely grounded market economies.
Paying special attention to not only divergent capitalism, but also the different types ofmanagement has brought to light a new frontier of business administration studies.
The aim of this Conference was to find academic benefits from the fact thatcomparison between management in different areas, different sectors and different
economies could help us to essentially understand what a firm is and should be. Theseadvantages can lead us to creatively respond to the paradigm shift of businessadministration studies at the beginning of this century, addressing the challenge ofmeeting our society and the world.
It was another aim of this Conference that JSCSM’s boosting exchanges withassociations or researchers abroad of comparative studies of management or similar
research groups will stimulate and diversify our academic activities, which will have agreat impact on other associations of business administration studies and make itself
more attractive for the younger generation of researchers.
The keynote speakers are listed as follows. “Changing Institutional Regimes andBusiness Systems: Opportunism, collective competition goods and political-economic
coalitions” by Richard WHITLEY (Manchester Business School, University ofManchester), “The Chinese Perspective of Comparative Studies of Firms in a Transition
Economy” by YANG Ye (Center of European Studies, School of International Area

23

Studies, East China Normal University), the discussants were “From the Perspective of
USA Firm Studies” by Keiji MATSUME (Ryukoku Univ.), “From the Perspective ofRussian Firms in Transition Studies” by Satoshi MIZOBATA (Kyoto Univ.), “From the
Perspective of Asian Firm Studies” by Yutaka TAKAKUBO (Nihon Univ.).
The following papers were also read in the regular sessions: “Privatization of
Telecommunications Carriers: From Regulation to Liberalization, From Monopoly toCompetition” by Teruyuki INOUE (Daito Bunka Univ.), “The Privatization of Airline
Companies: A Comparative Study on British Airways and Japan Airlines” by Koichi
MIYASHITA (Obirin Univ.), “A Comparative Study on Postal Reform in Japan andGermany: Different Ways to Privatization and Liberalization” by Toru SAKURAI (Nihon
Univ.), “Comparative Study on the Privatization of Tobacco Monopoly Corporations:Japan and France” by Ryota MURAKAMI (Okinawa International Univ.), “Reformed
Board of Directors and Independent Directors: Comparative Study through Social
Network Analysis in Japan and the United States” by Fumitaka IWANAMI (Komazawa
Univ.), “Global Networking Strategy of Japanese Firms and their Competitive
Advantages” by Takahide KOSAKA (Nihon Univ.), “Japanese and Korean Multinationals
Production Network in East Asia: Beyond the Paradigm of System Inseparability” by
LEE Jung Min (Chuo Univ.), “Electricity Reform in the Russian Federation: Electricity
Reform and Construction of a Competitive Electricity Market in the Russian Far East”
by Yutaka MORIOKA (Toyama Univ.), “The Specificity of Russian Economy andBusiness” by Izumi SAKAGUCHI (Japan Association for Trade with Russia &Central-Eastern Europe), “The Small Business in Russia” by Yutaka KONISHI (Gifu
Univ.), “Corporation and Society in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia: Focusing on Russian
Economic Sociology” by Hiroaki HAYASHI (The Univ. of Shimane), “Ownership,
Governance, and Financing of Bulgarian Companies” by Dimiter IALNAZOV (Kyoto
Univ.), “Resource Dependency Theory and Corporate Governance: Coordinating
External Environment and the Roles of the Governing Board” by Takahiro NISHI (Meiji
Univ.), “A Research Review of Corporate Governance in China: Studies of Japan andthe U.S.” by CHUN Zhang Ying (Ritsumeikan Univ.), “State Enterprise Reform andCorporate Governance in China” by CHEN Yuling (Shiga Univ.), “Comparative Studies
of Management Concepts about PO and NPO: Profit and Mission” by Nobutaka
FUJIWARA (Kyoto College of Economics), “Community Enterprise and the Community
Benefit” by Tadaharu BATO (Kagoshima International Univ.), “Social Rationality andBusiness Administration” by Naotoshi SHIGEMOTO (Ryukoku Univ.). In addition, elevendiscussants participated in this session.

24

4. Recent Trends of Research
The most important argument of JACSM is the comparative analysis of current
systems of management. Our analysis requires consideration of why varied forms ofmanagement organization persist and how they change. This requires specification of
the interdependencies between particular characteristics of these distinctive forms andthe dominant institutional arrangements.
R. WHITLEY (1999) presents a comparative business systems framework fordescribing and explaining the major differences in economic organization between
market economies. He suggests that they are to be understood in terms of prevailing
institutions dealing with the constitution and control of key resources such as skills,
capital, and legitimacy. This framework is used to analyze the development and changeof different forms of economic organization in post-war Asia and Eastern Europe.
Whitley points out that “characteristics of very broad and wide-ranging models ofcapitalism in competitive processes and organized coordination of economic activities
suggest a number of important dimensions for comparing systems of economic
organization across market economies; these include (1) the variety of resources andactivities integrated through managerial hierarchies, (2) the organization of ownershipand control, (3) an important aspect of market economies that is highlighted by theseaccounts is the degree of cooperation between suppliers and customers and between
competitors, (4) one is the extent of organizational integration of employees andlong-term interdependence between employers and employees, and (5) some of thesemodels also emphasize the varying extent to which firms pursue price-based
competitive strategies as opposed to innovation and quality ones.” (R. WHITLEY, 1999,
p.9)
In the comparative business systems approach the main stress falls on how wedevelop a new framework for comparing forms of business systems that identifies their
key characteristics and differences and explains these in terms of variations in particularkinds of societal institutions.
Reference
Whitley, Richard (1999), Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring andChange of Business Systems, Oxford University Press.
5. Future Meeting
JACSM will hold its next annual meeting at Chukyo University (Nagoya) on
May 13 and 14, 2006. The chairpersons of the organizing committee and programcommittee will be Takatoshi TSUKAMOTO (Chukyo Univ.) and Katsuaki ONISHI (Senshu

25Univ.), respectively. The title of the main session is Business and Society: New
Frontier of Comparative Studies of Management. The presentations at the convention
will be taken up in the forthcoming newsletter No.4, 2006.
6. Appendix: Office and Officers of JACSM, currently in the period from May 2004 to
May 2006.
President: Nobuaki KADOWAKI (Shiga Univ.)
Executive Members: Takahide KOSAKA (Nihon Univ.), Keiji NATSUME(Ryukoku Univ.)
Board of Directors: Kunihiko AOKI (Tohoku Univ.), Teruyuki INOUE (Daito
Bunka Univ.), Fumitaka IWANAMI (Komazawa Univ.), Katsuaki ONISHI (Senshu
Univ.), Shizuko KATO (Meiji Univ.), Nobutaka KAZAMA (Meiji Univ.),
Nobuyuki DEMISE (Meiji Univ.), Masaki HAYASHI (Chuo Univ.), Jun MAEDA(Keio Univ.), Keiji IDE (Nagasaki Univ.), Hiroshi INOUE (Toho Gakuen Univ.),
Kazuyoshi UEHARA (Kyoto Univ.), Shozo OKADA (Kochi Univ.), Masaki
NAKATA (Ritsumeikan Univ.), Issei NAKANISHI (Ritsumeikan Univ.), Mitsuo
FUJIMOTO (Aichi Univ.), Takashi HOSOKAWA (Ryukoku Univ.).
Managerial Office: c/o Yutaka KONISHI, College of Regional Studies, Gifu University,
1-1 Yanagido, Gifu City, 501-1193, JAPAN
Tel: (+81) (0) 58-293-3309, Fax: (+81) (0)58-293-3324
E-mail: ykonishi@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp
http: http://c-faculty.chuo-u.ac.jp/~yokokura/jacsm/(Yutaka KONISHI, Gifu University)

26

THE JAPAN FINANCE ASSOCIATION
1. General Description
The Japan Finance Association was founded in 1977 to promote academic researchin the field of corporate finance and financial management. The initiative for thecreation of the Association came partly from academic researchers in businessadministration and partly from those in financial economics. Since its foundation,
providing a focal point for intellectual interactions between researchers in academic
institutions and those in business and governmental institutions has been one of the
primary objectives of the Association. The Association has currently 517 individual
members and three institutional members (as of Oct. 31, 2003).
The Association is managed by the annual general meeting. The board of directors
consists of 20 members (10 Eastern Regional members and 10 Western Regional
members). They are elected triennially by the regular members except for students andinstitutions. The President of the Association is elected among the 20 directors. The
current President is Tsuneo SAKAMOTO (Meiji University), since 2004. For the three
years 2001 to 2003, the President was Yukio GOTO (Otemon Gakuin University).
The main activities of the Association consist of holding an annual meeting andpublishing an annual selection of articles in Keiei Zaimu Kenkyu (Japan Journal of
Finance).
Also, Eastern and Western Regional conferences are held respectively a few times ina year. A few papers are reported and discussed among the participating members ineach region.
2. Publications
The Association publishes its annual journal, which is named Keiei Zaimu Kenkyu(Japan Journal of Finance). We employ a referee system by which anonymous
members of the Association can submit a paper to the Editorial Committee. The current
chief editor is Masaru USHIYAMA (Kyushu University); the previous one was Yosio
IIHARA (Toyo University). Under the enthusiasm of these editors, the results of this
Journal are making good progress. A lot of articles are submitted every year.
The journal started from Volume 21. It took over from the previous publication of
the Association, whose title was Keiei Zaimu Kenkyu Sosho (Corporate Finance Studies
Series). The previous publication had been published once a year up to Volume 20(2001). The current journal is published twice a year. The latest number is Volume 23,
number 1, published in March 2004. It includes seven papers, five of which are written
in Japanese and the rest in English.
27

3. Annual Meetings
The 25th annual meeting took the form of a panel discussion on “Corporate FinanceStudies in the 21st Century – retrospectives and perspectives” at Konan University in
October 2001. The chairperson of the meeting was Masahiro AKAISHI (Konan
University). The panel discussion was held both on the first day and the last day; four
panelists participated in it. There were nine free theme sessions, and in total 18 papers
were presented.
The 26th annual meeting took the form of a panel discussion on “Reconstruction of
the Japanese Economy and the Role of Corporate Finance” at the University of Tokyo in
October 2002. The chairperson of the meeting was Takaaki WAKASUGI (the Universityof Tokyo). In the panel discussion three panelists participated. There were ten freetheme sessions, and in total 24 papers were presented.
The 27th annual meeting took the form of a panel discussion on “Corporate
Governance –Lessons from the bankruptcy of Enron and Worldcom” at Shikoku
University in October 2003. The chairperson of the meeting was Michihiro IKOMA(Shikoku University). In the panel discussion four panelists participated. There were 14
free theme sessions, and in total 31 papers were presented.
The 28th annual meeting took the form of a panel discussion on “The Revitalizationof the Big Businesses and Corporate Finance” at Meiji University in October 2004.
There were two panel discussions with four panelists each. And thirteen free theme
sessions were held, and in total 65 papers were presented.
The 29th annual meeting was held at University of Hyogo in October 2005. The
theme of the panel discussion was “Financial Strategy and Estimation of Investment
Value.” The chairperson of the meeting was Shinji TORIBE.
4. Program of the 28th annual meeting
Here are the details of the program of the 28th annual meeting, which was held at
Meiji University on October 15 through 17 in 2004, with 264 participants.
Panel discussions were held both on the first day and the last day. The one on thefirst day was titled “The Revitalization of Japanese Corporations in the view of
Financial Institutions”, chaired by Takaaki WAKASUGI (Tokyo Keizai University). The
panelists were as follows: Takaaki WAKASUGI, “Corporate Governance and Financial
Institutions”; Raita SAKAI (MIDC and Japan Corporate Governance Institute), “Long
Term Investments by the Foreign Institutions –The Case of CalPERS”; Tomomi YANO
(Pension Fund Association), “Corporate Governance Reform that Pension Funds Want”;
Hisashi YAMASHITA, “Casualty Insurance Companies and the Firm Value Enhancement28

of Japanese Corporations”.
The other one on the last day was titled “The Revitalization of the Big Businesses
and Corporate Finance”, chaired by Shigeki SAKAKIBARA (Kobe University) and Akihiro
KOYAMA (Gakushuin University). The panelists were as follows: Makoto ICHIMURA(Chuo University), “Corporate Reconstruction and Valuation”; Yasuhiro TSUNEFUKA(Hitachi Research Institute), “Revitalization of Big Businesses and New JapaneseManagement”; Kyoko IKEGAMI (Kumamoto Gakuen University), “Corporate
Reconstruction in the U.S.A. and Its Implications”; Nobuo SAYAMA, “Investment Funds
and Corporate Reconstruction”.
Besides the panel discussions there were 13 sessions, at which 31 papers were
presented on the second and last days. The sessions included ten sessions with specified
themes and three ones without them. Following are the themes of the sessions and thechairpersons:
The “Derivatives” session was chaired by Yoshisuke KANEZAKI (Tohoku University).
Reporters were Mikiharu NOMA (Yokoyama City University), and Shigeo TAKAMI(Toyama University) and Hiroatsu UESAKA (Toyama University of International Studies),and commentators were Yasuhiro YONEZAWA (Yokohama National University),
Masahiro YAMAMOTO (Meiji University) and Koichi FURUKAWA (Iwate Prefectural
University), respectively.
The “Medium and Small Size Firms and Ventures” session was chaired by Yoshihiro
OSAKA (Ishinomaki Senshu University). Reporters were CHOU Dan (Meiji University),
Kenji SUZUKI (Hitotsubashi University) and Kiyotaka UZAKI (Oita University), andcommentators were Toru NAKAI (Okayama Shoka University), Masahiro AKAISHI(Konan University) and Toyohiko HACHIYA (Tokyo Institute of Technology),
respectively.
The “Reform of Bank Management” session was chaired by Chuji ITO (Tokyo
University of Science, Suwa). Reporters were Keiji INOUE (University of Michigan),Tokuya SUGAMIYA (Hitachi) and Konari UCHIDA and Naohisa GOTO (The University of
Kitakyushu), and commentators were Toshio NISHIMURA (Mitsui Life Insurance
Company), Yasuhiro OGURA (Toyo University) and Hiroshi MIZUNO (Fukuoka
University), respectively.
The “Accounting Information and Corporate Value (no.1)” session was chaired by
Masahiro YAMAMOTO (Meiji University). Reporters were Miwako MESAKI, Akira USUI
(Waseda University) and Shigeo AOKI (Tokyo International University), andcommentators were Katsuhiro MURAMATSU (Ritsumeikan University), Toshio KIMURA(University of Marketing and Distribution Sciences) and Sadayoshi MAEDA (Musashi
University), respectively.
29

The “Behavioral Finance” session was chaired by Rinyu TEKI (Osaka City
University). Reporters were Yasuhiro DEZU & Nobuyuki TESHIMA (Senshu University),
Katsuhiko OKADA & Hisashi YAMAZAKI (Kobe University) and Katsunori YAMAGUCHI(Ibbotson Associates Japan), and commentators were Takahiko OCHIAI (Aomori PublicCollege), Tagato HIRAKI (Kwansei Gakuin University) and Yoshio IIHARA, respectively.
The “Corporate Value and Intellectual Properties” session was chaired by Shozo
ICHIMURA (Kyushu Institute of Information Sciences). Reporters were Tadashi
MORISHITA (Meiji University), Akio YAJIMA (Hitachi) and Yuichi MORII (Mizuho Trust& Banking Co.), and commentators were Yoshihiro OSAKA (Ishinomaki Senshu
University), Yoshiaki TOKUNAGA (Asia University) and Kimiharu KOGA (Nakamura
Gakuen University), respectively.
The “Corporate Governance (no.1)” session was chaired by Shigeru SADAMATSU(Kumamoto Gakuen University). Reporters were Ken-ichi MASUO (Saitama University),
Shinya TSUMORI (Nihon Fukushi University), Koichi SAGO (Tezukayama University),
and commentators were Hiroyuki BUNDO (Tokiwa University), Tokuji MINOWA (Saitama
University) and Masaru USHIYAMA (Kyushu University).
The “Accounting Information and Corporate Value (no.2)” session was chaired byMichio KUNIMURA (Meijo University). Reporters were Gitetsu TEI (Kobe University),
Yasunobu OTA (Seikei University), Kazuyuki SUDA (Waseda University) and Hitoshi
TAKEHARA (University of Tsukuba), and commentators were Junjiro MIYAMOTO(Tezukayama University), Masayuki AOBUCHI (Niigata University of International andInformation Studies) and Kazuo YOSHIDA (Nagoya City University), respectively.
The “Mergers and Acquisitions” session was chaired by Shinobu MURAMATSU(Kyushu Institute of Information Sciences). Reporters were Ralf BEBENROTH (Osaka
University of Economics), Keiichi SUGIURA (Toyo University) and Masaya OKAWA and
Motoo TSUJIMURA (Osaka University), and commentators were Susumu TABUCHI(Osaka University of Economics), Koji SONODA (Tokyo International University) and
Tsuneo ONOZAKI (Ryutsu Keizai University), respectively.
The “Corporate Governance (no.2)” session was chaired by Akira KOMATSU(Hitotsubashi University). Reporters were Toru SHIRASAKA (Daito Bunka University),
Chihiro IWAI (Kinki University) & Susumu SAITO (Sophia University) and Nobuyuki
DEMISE (Meiji University), and commentators were Nobuo SAKUMA (Soka University),
Yasuhiro KOBAYASHI (Kanagawa University) and Michihiro IKOMA (Shikoku University),
respectively.
Three sessions without specified themes were chaired by Rinya SHIBAKAWA (Teikyo
University), Kazuhiko NISHINA (Osaka University), and Shozo HORI (Aichi University).
Reporters in the first session were Keiichi KUBOTA & Hitoshi KAKEHARA (University
30

of Tsukuba), Toshihumi TOKUNAGA (Nanzan University), Akira UCHIYAMA (Kyushu
Electric Power), and commentators were Susumu SAITO (Sophia University),HAGIWARA (Meiji University), Kazuhiko NISHINA (Osaka University), respectively.
Reporters in the second session were Keiichi TANAKA (Tokyo Metropolitan
University), Bunketsu MA & Hideki KATSUTA (Osaka University), LAU Wee Yeap
(Osaka University), and commentators were Toshio SERITA (Aoyama Gakuin
University), Masato KAMEKAWA (Rikkyo University), Junjiro MIYAMOTO (Tezukayama
University), respectively.
Reporters in the third session were Tadayasu YAMASHITA (Kobe University), Saburo
HORIMOTO & P. D. NIMAL (Shiga University) and Ichiro SASAKI (Hiroshima Universityof Economics), and commentators were Kimiyoshi MIURA (Bunkyo Gakuin University),Toshifumi TOKUNAGA (Nanzan University) and Takaaki WAKASUGI (Tokyo Keizai
University), respectively.
The chairperson of the 28th annual meeting was Tsuneo SAKAMOTO (Meiji
University).
(Tsuneo SAKAMOTO, Meiji University)

31

JAPAN ACADEMY OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT
1. General Description
The Japan Academy of Labor and Management (JALM) was established by Susumu
KAIDO (the first president of JALM, emeritus professor of Kobe University), Shin-ichiro
KIMOTO (the second president, emeritus professor of Meiji University), Hiroshi
HASEGAWA (emeritus professor of Chuo University), Hiromu SHIMA (the third president,
emeritus professor of Doshisha University) and 12 other scholars on May 10, 1991, at
the Surugadai Memorial Hall of Chuo University. At the end of June 2004, the Academy
has the 278 members.
The mission of this Academy is “that we should develop the academic research
instead of the practical methods on the labor and management issues within industries.”“The academic research is emerging from the critical mind which is the driving force of
research development and is also the genius of this Academy (S. KAIDO, the Bulletin of
JALM, No.1, 1991).” This “critical mind” is the shared values and the genuine heritageof the members of this Academy.
Past Presidents are as follows;
1991-1994
Susumu KAIDO (Nara Sangyo Univ.)
1994-1997
Sin-Ichiro KIMOTO (Meiji Univ.)
1997-2000
Hiromu SHIMA (Doshisha Univ.)
2000-2003
Masaki HAYASHI (Chuo Univ.)
2003Nobuo MORIKAWA (Hiroshima Shudo Univ.)
2. Annual Conferences and Themes
The Academy has been holding the national conference once a year, as a rule, in
June.
The main themes and the host universities of the national conferences in the past
years are as follows;
1st Conference, May 10-11, 1991:
Held at Chuo University, its main theme was Issues of Employment and Human
Resources in the Japanese Management System.
2nd Conference, May 8-9, 1992:
Held at Meijo University, its main theme was Internationalization and Contemporary
Issues of Human Resources.
3rd Conference, May 29-30, 1993:
Held at Sapporo University, its main theme was Japanese-type Corporate Society and32

Human Resource Management.
4th Conference, May 20-21, 1994:
Held at Kansai University, its main theme was Mobilization of Labor Market andHuman Resource Management.
5th Conference, May 19-20, 1995:
Held at Meiji University, its main theme was Human Resource Management of White
Collar Employees.
6th Conference, May 25-26, 1996:
Held at Kwansei Gakuin University, its main theme was Change of JapaneseManagement and Human Resource Management.
7th Conference, May 24-25, 1997:
Held at Komazawa University, its main theme was Deregulation and Human Resources.
8th Conference, May 29-31, 1998:
Held at Doshisha University, its main theme was Changes in Employment Form inJapan.
9th Conference, June 25-27, 1999:
Held at Tokyo University of Agriculture at Abashiri, its main theme was Regional
Economy and Employment.
10th Conference, June 9-11, 2000:
Held at School of Commerce, Nihon University, its main theme was Changes in
Employment and Labor Issues under the Mega-Competition.
11th Conference, June 8-10, 2001:
Held at Ritsumeikan University at Biwako-Kusatsu, its main theme was IT Revolution
and Human Resources.
12th Conference, June 7-9, 2002:
Held at Iwate University, its main theme was Some Problems on Employment in Recent
Years.
13th Conference, June 13-15, 2003:
Held at Hiroshima Shudo University, its main theme was The Transformation of
Personnel and Employment System, and Industrial Relations.
14th Conference, July 16-18, 2004:
Held at Kyushu University, its main theme was New Issues in Labor and Management.
15th Conference, June 10-12, 2005:
Held at Sakushin Gakuin University, its main theme was Crisis of Manufacturing andCurrent Vocational Training.
*As for main presenters’ names and their speech titles at each annual conference, see

33

Tables 1-15.
3. The Present State of Japanese Human Resource Management and Recent Research
Activities
The Japanese business environment has drastically changed since the 1990’s. Two
far-reaching changes have impacted not only Japanese industry but also the rest of theworld.
The first change is the information technology revolution (or networking of
information technology) in the workplace. IT opened the giving and receiving of
information to all, and so created new and various needs from customers. One main
result was that the mass production system is no longer efficient and has become
old-fashioned (Shoji AKINO, 2002). At the same time, IT also has changed the labor
process. On the one hand, it needs a new type of workers who are so-called “symbolic
analysts”, and who can analyze, decode, interpret and reform information. On the other
hand a lot of operators who input information into computers engage in just simple,
fragmentary and uninteresting work. Thus the IT revolution has split workers into twogroups, i.e., a “sophisticated” skilled group and the other large group of ordinary
low-skilled workers (Minoru FUJITA, 2002).
The second change taking place is globalization. Restructuring and deregulation
policies, which are based upon the neo-liberalism theory, cause severe competition in
the market, so-called Mega-Competition. Under these conditions, reducing costs asmuch as possible is absolutely necessary (Ken-ichi KURODA 2000, Yohnosuke OGOSHI,
2004).
Facing these momentous changes, many Japanese employers have changed theirpolicy of human resource management, a policy which greatly contributed to the rapid
growth of the Japanese economy since the 1960’s.
Firstly, many regular workers were “restructured”, and this serious activity by
management caused the collapse of the traditional Japanese employment practice (thewell-known so-called lifetime employment system). In 1985, the Japan Business
Federation (Keidanren, former Japan Federation of Employers’ Association =Nikkeiren) officially published “New Japanese Management for the Future Society,” inwhich they recommended a portfolio of employment, i.e. diversity of employment.
According to the recent labor markets, workers are divided into a few regular workers
and a main body of non-regular workers. The latter group consists of part-time workers,
temporary workers and other contingent workers (Yohnosuke OGOSHI, 2004).
The second change concerning HRM is the pay system. It is well known that34

Japanese workers are paid in accordance with age or length of service, the so-called
nenko (seniority) wage system. Though this is not true of all companies, certainly we
can find this tendency among regular male workers (Japanese “salary men”) in large
companies. But it does not mean that wage levels depend on just one’s age or length ofservice. The fact is that Japanese companies employ many new graduates who areunskilled when they enter, and then train them within the company. Under thesecircumstances, if wage levels are decided in accordance with the level of one’s skill or
one’s competency as measured by appraisal, they seem apparently to be accompaniedby age or length of service. This pay system is called Japanese skill- or competencybased pay (shokuno-kyu). But these relationships between age (or length of service) andskill (or competency) have collapsed, because of the IT revolution and globalization. On
the one hand, new skills and new competencies needed by companies do not increase inproportion to age or length of service, and on the other hand the principle of Japaneseskill- or competency-based pay tends to raise pay levels. And so many companies haveintroduced a new pay system, which is a performance-based or result-based pay system(seikashugi). But these do not necessarily work successfully, as shown in the failed caseof the Fujitsu Company (Takashi MORIYA, 2004, Hiromu SHIMA, 2005, Takao NAGAI,
2005).
The third change in the Japanese business environment is the system of working
hours. Because of the IT revolution and globalization, the conventional work pattern ofworking hours normally from 9:00 to 17:00 is not capable of dealing with the new
business reality, and is not rational for R&D engineers’ jobs. In brief, it has been said
that management by a fixed hour system does not fit the current business environment.
The working hour system has changed from the old rigid pattern to new more flexible
patterns, for example de facto working hours, flexible working hours, variable working
hours, discretionary work, and so on. This shift is encouraged by the deregulation oflabor law. While these new working hour arrangements contribute to reducing wage
costs and improving labor productivity, we must point out that they can have a bad
influence upon workers’ health.
Lastly, as the factors related to HRM have changed, the basic HRM system has alsochanged. In 1969, when the Japanese economy began to expand into the competitive
international market, the JBF (former JFEA) proposed a new personnel management
system, which it called “competency-based personnel management”(CPM). Since thattime, it has been adopted as the basic and total management policy of Japanese HRM.
The CPM has been formed into a concrete shape within the Personnel Ranking System
based on Competence (PRSC, shokuno-shikaku-seido), which is a unique total treatment
system applied to all fields and to the full range of employment conditions from job

35

assignment, education and training, promotion and pay raises to the end of workers’
contracts and retirement. But as a result of the IT revolution and globalization, the CPM
and PRSC do not seem to work efficiently, as seen in the case of the pay system.
Because there are many new varieties of jobs created, workers who work hard withdiscipline, positive attitude, responsibility and cooperation cannot always achieve good
performance. Therefore, management and their consultants claim strongly that theyneed to evaluate workers not according to their capability, effort and so on, butaccording to result and/or concrete performance. Now we can find that many inmanagement and HR managers are attempting to reform PRSC by using the concept ofAmerican competency, but it has not been particularly successful, as in the case of thepay system.
4. Conclusion and Future Challenges
As mentioned above, CPM and PRSC are the core HRM systems which havecontributed to high productivity and good performance in Japan. This thesis is ourcommon perception. Using these systems, Japanese employers can flexibly treat
employees just as they wish unless unions decide to resist them.
Due to limited space, which necessitates abbreviating, we have another common
perception, which is a characteristic feature of Japanese industrial relations. Militancy,
strong class-consciousness and radical unions had been removed from Japanese privatecompanies and the workplace before the JFEA proposed the CPM. The JFEA
emphasized the removal of hostile leftist unions and fostered cooperative unions. As aresult, Japanese unions abandoned job control power, developed a cozy relationshipwith management, were soaked in the so-called “company-first principle”, anddeveloped to be cooperative enterprise-based unions.
But recently, CPM (and/or PRSC) is not working well, and employers put emphasis
on individual rather than on collective IR. In addition to this, enterprise-based unions
have been weakening.
If a performance-based HRM system is introduced to a non-unionized workplace, it
is apparent that the workers’ situation will be worsened, which is undesirable. Serious
problems related to HRM are widespread, for example: unemployment, contingent
workers and so-called NEET (= Not in Employment, Education or Training), pay
systems which are performance-based using MBO (management by objective), working
hours, elderly and women workers and so on. Thus we have a lot of challenges which
need to be researched from the workers’ viewpoint. This comprises our significant
social responsibility.

36

Table 1 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 1st Conference (1991)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Harue FUJII(Tokyo Agricultural
Univ.)

Change and Process of Women’s Work in JapaneseManagement

Shigeki AOYAMA(Shizuoka Univ.)

Japanese Production System and Japanese Industrial
RelationsTakanobu YAMASHITA(Ritsumeikan Univ.),

Japanese Management and Computerization

Shin-ichiro KIMOTO(Meiji Univ.)

Japanese Human
Flexibility

Resources

Management

andTable 2 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 2nd Conference (1992)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Takehisa HIRANO(Sapporo Univ.),

Industrial Relations and Union Movement at the
Workplace in the U.S.

Masaki HAYASHI(Chuo Univ.),

International Transfer of Japanese Management Systems

Ken-ichi KURODA(Momoyama Gakuin
Univ.)

Japanese Industrial Relations and Post-Fordism Theory

Hiroyuki MATSUDA(Matsusho Gakuen
Junior College)

The Structure of American HRM in the 1920s

Bei BOOGIL (Tokyo
Univ. of Agriculture)

Nature of Foreign Workers

Masaki SARUTA(Chukyo Univ.)

Internationalization and Human Resources Management

Hiroshi KAWAHITO(Lawyer)Japanese Management and Karoshi (Death from
Overwork)

37

Table 3

Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 3rd Conference (1993)

Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Kiyoshi TAKAGI(Sapporo Gakuin Univ.)

Structure and Function of Japanese-type Corporate
Society

Ken-ichi ITO(Osaka Sangyo Univ.)

Japanese-type Corporate Society and Corporate Welfare

Shinji MIYAZAKI(Meijo Univ.)

Restructuring in Big Companies and Innovation ofOrganization

Takashi HIRANUMA(Meiji Univ.)

Problems of Human Resources Management in theJapan Railway Company

Irina TIKHOTSKAYA (the The Problems of Women’s Labor in Russia
InstituteofOriental
Studies, Russian
Academy of Sciences)
Yoshio YUASA(Ehime Univ.)

The Argument about Labor Process and the Japanese
Production System

Yukichi TAKAHASHI(Senshu Univ.)

Japanese-type Corporate Society and Current Industrial
Relations in Japan

Table 4 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 4th Conference (1994)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Hidejiro INOUE (Kyoto Flexibility and Labor Market
College of Economics)
Kazushi IKEGAMI(Chuo Univ.)

Labor Flexibility in Information Processing Work

Naoki TONA
(Nagoya Gakuin Univ.)

Current Nature of Skill and its Succession

Ken-ichi KURODA(Momoyama Gakuin
Univ.)

Japanization and/or Individualization of Human
Resources Management and Industrial Relations in the
U.K.

Yoshiji SUZUKI(Sapporo Univ.)

On Mobilization of Employment and Wobble of theJapanese Seniority Pay System.

Koji MORIOKA

Japanese Dual Labor Market and Split in Working

38

(Kansai Univ.)

Hours Structure

Table 5 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 5th Conference (1995)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Tomio MAKINO(Nihon Univ.)

White Collar Workers in Current Japan

Yuji KATO(Senshu Univ.)

Human Resources Management for White Collar
Workers

Hiroki WATARI(Waseda Univ.)

Legal Problems of White-Collar Workers in the Case of
Transposition, Temporary Transfer and Transfer.

Seiichiro HAYAKAWA(Hosei Univ.)

Promotion Management for Government Employees.

Rei SEIYAMA(Ibaraki Univ.)

Current Rationalization in White Collar Workplace and
Women Workers

Keiji NATSUME(Ryukoku Univ.)

Reorganization of American Corporate Structure andManagement of Managers in the 1980’s

Masaki NAKATA(Ritsumeikan Univ.)

Human Resource Management to Managerial Workers

Table 6 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 6th Conference (1996)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Daizo YAMAMOTO(Graduate School,
Doshisha Univ.)

Changing Skill and Technology; Focus on the Labor
Process Theory

Kumiko K. NAKANO(Graduate School,Kansai Univ.)

The Temporary Help Supply Industry and Restructuringof Labor Force in the U.S.

Miki SAWADA(Kanazawa Univ.)

The Present Development of Japanese Industrial
Relations and Workers’ Participations

Makoto ISHII
Positive Use of Female Workers and Hiring of New(The Institute for Science Female Graduatesof Labour)

39

Kazuko KAWAGUCHI(Chuo Univ.)

ReorganizationofJapaneseManagement for Women Workers

Yoshinari MARUYAMA(Rikkyo Univ.)

Japanization in Work

Style

Personnel

Table 7 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 7th Conference (1997)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Kazumichi GOKA
(Kanazawa Uni.)

Women’s Workers in Deregulation and Flexibility of
Employment

Yasuko IKEDA(National
Federation of Trade
Unions, Zenroren)

Abolition of Protection Clause for Women in Labor
Standards Law is a Breach of Privilege

Mami NAKANO(Lawyer)Deregulation and Women Workers

Hakumi MITSUOKA(Komazawa Univ.)

Changes of Employment Systems and Industrial
RelationsundertheContemporary
Japanese
Deregulation

Toshikazu NAGAYAMA(Nihon Univ.)

Changes of Employment and Labor Relations under the
Policy of Deregulation

Satoshi NISHITANI(Osaka City Univ.)

The Legal Viewpoint of Deregulation in Labor Law

Table 8 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 8th Conference (1998)
Presenters’ Names(University)
Hideo AOYAMA(Sakushin Gakuin
Univ.)

Speech Titles
Personnel Management in the 21st Century and Regular
Employees in Japan

Yoshihide OKABE
Management and Employment in Public Hospitals(The Research Institutefor National Health ofJapan)

40

Yuji ENDO
(Kyushu Univ.)

Women’s Work in Changing Form of Employment

Kazuo MATSUMURA(Chuo Univ.)

Atypical Employment in the unified German Labor
MarketKiyoyuki NISHIKAWA(Ryukoku Univ.)

Diversificationof
Employment
Forms
Transformation of Personnel Management

Iwao NAMIE(Ritsumeikan Univ.)

Changes in the Employment Form of Regular
Employees

andTable 9 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 9th Conference (1999)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Teruhisa MACHII(Hokkaido Univ.)

Restructuring of the Steel Industry in Hokkaido

Kou SHIINA(Hokkaido Univ.)

Employment Problems of Construction Industry andSeasonal Workers in Hokkaido

Tatsuo ADACHI(Kyoto Junior College)

Management Analysis of Resort Development Businessin Miyazaki Prefecture

Keiichi YOSHIDA(Toyo Univ.)

New Issues of Regional Economy in a Transitional
PeriodShunji TANAKA(Tokyo University ofAgriculture)

A Reassessment of the Potential of Regional Enterprises
Utilizing Local Resources

Kazuhiko KAWASAKI(Hokkaido Tokai Univ.)

The Swedish Model in Transition

Table 10 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 10th Conference (2000)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Jin IGARASHI(Hosei Univ.)

Criticism of Praise for the Japanese-Style Industrial
RelationsTakeo KINOSHITA(International Univ.
of Kagoshima)Transformation of the Labor Competition System
Regarding Wages

41

Ken-ichi KURODA(Meiji Univ.)

Performance-based Management
Ranking System of Competence

andPersonnel

Manabu MINE
(Hosei Univ.)

Employee Appraisal Practices and Their Impacts on
Union Solidarity

Shozo SASAKI (Japan The Auto Industry in International Reorganization andResearch Institute of its Impact on Workers and People.
Labour Movement)
Takayuki KIMURA(Gifu Keizai Univ.)

Restructuring of Regional Employment under Industrial
Mega-Competition

Nobuko HASEGAWA
Recent Developments in Labour and Women.
(Institute for Work andLife)

Table 11 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 11th Conference (2001)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Shoji AKINO(Rikkyo Univ.)

Information and Production System in Japan

Minoru FUJITA(Obirin Univ.)

IT Revolution and Changes in Production System

Yoritoshi NAGAI(Ehime Univ.)

IT Revolution and Industrial Relations

Mitsuyoshi MIYUKI(Oita Univ.)

Development of Information Technology, Work andManagement in Steel Industry

Keiji NATSUME(Ryukoku Univ.)

IT Revolution and Temporary Workers in the U.S.

Table 12 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 12th Conference (2002)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Hiroki WATARI(Chuo Gakuin Univ.)

Present Situation and Issues of a Typical Employment inJapan

Reiko OKAYAMA(Bunkyo Gakuin Univ.)

Feminization of the Labor Force and a Typical
Employment in Britain

42

Miki SAWADA(Kanazawa Univ.)

The Development of a Typical Employment and the
Human Resource Management in the U.S.

Kazuo MATSUMARU(Chuo Univ.)

The Development of Atypical Employment in Germany

Norio TAGUCHI(Iwate Univ.)

A Study of the Employment Problems of an Area

Tsunenori YASUI(Hannan Univ.)

The Changes of Labor Management and Employment
Security

Nobuo MORIKAWA(Hiroshima Shudo Univ.)

Mixed Factors of Unemployment and Synthetic
Employment Measures

Table 13 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 13th Conference (2003)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Takashi MORIYA(Nara Sangyo Univ.)Type of Accomplishment Wage System and Industrial
Relations in Japanese Enterprises

Yohnosuke OGOSHI(Kokugakuin Univ.)

The Transformation of the Japanese Employment
System and the Industrial Relations

Kayo NAKAGAWA(Kochi Univ.)

Current UK Industrial Relations and the EU

Teiichi SEKIGUCHI(Chuo Univ.)

Recent Changes in the HRM andContractualism in US Industrial Relations

Masaki SARUTA(Chukyo Univ.)

Employment System and Industrial Relations in Sweden

Workplace

Table 14 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 14th Conference (2004)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Takashi WATANABE(Ritsumeikan Univ.)

One of the Challenges in HRM Studies

Hiromu SHIMA(Doshisha Univ.)

The Problems ofManagement in Japan

Yoshiharu HYAKUTA(Komazawa Univ.)

The Historical Examination on the Transformation ofIndustrial Relations in USA

43

ModernHuman

Resource

Teasook MYUNG(Sapporo Univ.)

Current Situations of Women’s Work in South Korea

Shunichiro AOKIThe Reform of Personnel Management in China(Japan China
Economic Relations andTrade Centre)

Table 15 Main presenters’ names and their speech titles at the 14th Conference (2005)
Presenters’ Names(University)

Speech Titles

Takashi HIRANUMA(Meiji Univ.)

Current Apprenticeship System in the US Auto Industry.

Yutaka TAMURA(Toho Gakuen Univ.)

Learning in the Operation Group and Working
Organization

Kazutoshi TANAKA
Some Issues of Career Development from the Viewpoint(The Polytechnic Univ. of of Vocational History in Japan
Japan)
Toshikazu NAGAYAMA(Nihon Univ.)

Changes in Utilizing form of Labor Force in Small andMedium-sized Enterprise, and Skilled Workers

Yuji TANIGUCHI
Changes in ILO Advice on International Standards of(The Polytechnic Univ. of Human Resource Development
Japan)(Ken-ichi KURODA, Meiji University)

44

THE JAPAN SOCIETY OF LOGISTICS AND SHIPPING ECONOMICS

1. Brief History and Features of the Society
The Japan Society of Logistics and Shipping Economics (hereinafter abbreviated as
JSLSE) was established originally as the Japan Society of Shipping Economics in
October 1966. Its purpose has been to encourage the academic studies of economic
issues of maritime transportation and the maritime industry focusing on shipping
economics, to spread its knowledge widely and to contribute to the sound developmentof its related industries. Nowadays, the study field of the Society has been expanded tocover physical distribution and logistics beyond shipping since the latter half of the
1990s. JSLSE not only convenes its annual meeting but also has monthly study
meetings held by its Western Japan and Eastern Japan committees six to nine times ayear respectively. Likewise, JSLSE issues its annual bulletin: Journal of Logistics andShipping Economics, which is a record of the fruits of studies produced by membersthat pass through a strict examination by referees. The Journal will reach its 39th
volume this year.
One feature of the Society is to make open the fruits of studies of members
belonging to universities and others at a “place of interchange” with the industrial
research world, thereby developing its activities with it as a source of energy. Thoseshipping and logistics economists who are serving the industry have responded well tothe expectations of academism. Therefore, we have been exploring themes for studies
under “open academism”, through the cooperation of industry and academia, and trying
our best to deepen the theory so as to contribute to the development of shipping andlogistics theory warrantable worldwide.
2. Membership
The number of our membership at the end of July 2005 is as follows: 266 full andassociate members, 5 honorary members and 22 corporate members. About 60 percentof the members belong to academic organizations such as universities and institutes,
while the rest of them belong to business and governmental organizations. Recently, themembership of young students has been increasing.
3. Trends of Studies since 2000
First of all, we shall express the trends of studies in our society through key words
such as Globalization, Physical Distribution, Logistics, Supply Chain Management(SCM), Third Party Logistics (3PL), Alliances, Networks, Management, Strategy etc.

45

related to shipping, airlines, ports and combinations of them. It is clear that threeimportant fields can be found out from the themes of the studies. The first is that the
viewpoint of members’ study has been expanding from shipping itself to PhysicalDistribution, Logistics, and SCM. So we can see many study papers regarding strategic
management. The second is that shipping and airlines as international transport have
faced the same problem, that is, strategic alliance. Also it will be an important issue tochoose between shipping and airlines as international transport modes in the global
logistics system. The third is that the Asia has become an important area for Shipping,
Physical Distribution, Logistics and SCM activities and has been attracting theattentions of researchers.
4. Annual Meetings (2000~2004)
1) 34th Annual Meeting
The 34th annual meeting was held at Tokyo University of Mercantile Marine in
October of 2000. The common subject for the symposium was Shipping Management in
the Era of Globalization. A summary is as follows:
Kunio MIYASHITA (Kobe University) argued about “Strategic Effects of Global
Management on Container Shipping”. By considering Japanese forwarders’ behavior incollecting cargo left for three destinations and shipping companies’ behavior in carrying
containers of two countries and two areas in Japan/US/ Europe/the Far East from theviewpoint of physical distribution strategy, he proved that a change or reform of thestrategy occurred at the boundary of the middle of the 90s.
The forwarders changed to strengthen their strategy more and more based on a
traditional combined transport strategy. On the other hand, the strategy of the shipping
companies was greatly altered. Especially, the combined transport strategy ofJapan/US/Europe shipping companies changed to an in-differential strategy fromdifferential service, and the strategy of Japan/Europe shipping companies was reformed
to strengthen the strategy of a corresponding cargo generation environment and a new
adoption of a freight strategy based on service contracts.
Far Eastern shipping companies have adopted a strategy quite different fromJapan/US/Europe shipping companies. They have reinforced combined transport
services more than in the past, which has resulted in an in-differential service foradvanced shipping companies, but on the other hand has weakened the effect of thestrategy of a corresponding cargo generation environment.
The common environment behind the behavior of these shipping companies isderegulation, alliance, and the logistics strategy of the shipper.
Alliance is not bearing the same effect in relations between the shipping companies
either. It was especially symbolic that United States shipping companies, which had

46

enjoyed the effect of the strategy with an excellent concentrated degree before forming
the alliance, had weakened their competitive position after the alliances formation. As
long as there is competition among the carriers of the alliance, the strategy of acorresponding SCM based on the alliance can do nothing but present essential
shortcomings.
By overcoming the problem, the strategy by which the formation of a partnership isenabled is development of global management by the carrier. The ability of a shipping
company to manage the world market from the viewpoint of single management is the
key for SCM development. By this means, the combined transport strategy as
positioned a basic infrastructure of physical distribution can demonstrate a synergistic
effect with the strategy of corresponding cargo generation environment.
Shigeru YOSHIDA (Kobe University of Mercantile Marine) analyzed “The Effects of
Globalization on Shipping Function and its Managerial Efficiency”, taking up two
problems. The one is what influence globalization in the shipping industry has exerted
on the function of shipping. The other is whether any improvement in efficiency has
been seen in the factor procurement and the marketing of shipping due to globalization.
Regarding the first problem, under the consideration that the basic functions ofshipping are procurement of factor services, production and marketing of shipping
services, on the one hand traditional shipping deals with the procurement of factor
services within an organization, while on the other hand, nowadays with advanced
specialization of shipping functions and in order to realize the best procurement offactor services, shipping companies have changed their dealing from the internalorganization to the market, that is, outsourcing.
Regarding the second problem, organizational inefficiency is seen in quasiorganizations as in-house patterns of procuring factor services and the overseas
affiliated companies due to globalization of marketing. The improvement of cost
efficiency is not too advanced, though the fixed cost ratio and the ship ownership ratio
have changed greatly through outsourcing of ship management services. The in-housepatterns of ship management services lead to expansion of the management costs of thesubsidiary firm.
Tomio TAKADA (Ryutsu Keizai University) considered “The Future of 3PL in Global
Logistics”.
The SCM in the field of distribution, and especially 3PL for out-sourcing which
deeply affects it, were less interesting before the IT revolution spread. 3PL businesses
consistently undertake all logistics services in the supply chain from procurement totransport and delivery. In global logistics, it is necessary to handle customs clearance
and document preparation in addition.

47

It is necessary to possess a high degree of know-how concerning the construction of
the information processing system and the physical distribution business in theaccomplishment of 3PL. Truck businesses, general trading companies and computermakers have begun to enter this field, although most of them do not fill all therequirements of the supply chain, and only combine some of the traditional individual
physical distribution functions, including consulting. It would seem to be right to referto them not as 3PL but as third party distributors. In global logistics round whichinternational trade twines, there are a few such cases.
But, under the situation of rapid developing Asian shipping, it is a powerful strategy
for Japanese shipping companies to survive the development of 3PL business andactively correspond to the global logistics of shipping enterprises.
To develop 3PL to the full scale in an especially global phase, it seems to be very
difficult in the existing frame. The establishment of a new subject, which has enoughknow-how in the international distribution business, international trade, and thecomputer system through the formation of amalgamation with different types ofbusiness or alliance will be the first realistic step toward that.
Toshio MATSUDA (Nippon Yusen Co.) dealt with “Globalization in Shipping
Management”.
When the definition of globalization is assumed to be “The process of rendering
domestic activities worldwide in scope”, that is, international movement, international
division of labor, international tie-ups, and international advancement of industry,
globalization is observed in all components of the shipping industry. Globalization
involves of management and internationalization, alliances, the container terminal
management, the overhead costs and the ship management. The cause of globalization
can be interpreted as an economical rationality, which can be seen in theabove-mentioned items. It has already been thought that globalization is entering thefinal stage while taking on the shape of an oligopoly. It is a process where securing
strength in cost competition becomes a strategy of importance so that mature industry
can survive, and the process toward globalizing and creating an oligopoly is enteredinevitably.
2) 35th Annual Meeting
The 35th annual meeting was held at Kobe University of Mercantile Marine in
October of 2001. The common subject for the symposium was World Shipping in the
21st Century. A summary is as follows:
Kunio KATAYAMA (Osaka Gakuin University) surveyed “Globalization and Modern
Japanese Shipping Industry”, which was a study on shipping and historical aspects of48

globalization. In this context globalization means worldwide economic activities whichbegan with the expansion of Europe in the age of discovery. The paper examined therelations of globalization, nation states and modern Japanese shipping. The developmentof immigration control as a shipping-related regulation was also explained to clarify theargument.
Kazushige TERADA (Tokyo University of Mercantile Marine) took up “Latest
Changes in Port Management due to Private Sector Involvement”. This study concernedlatest the changes in container terminal management and inter-linking port networks instrategic locations developed by major terminal operating companies. These players
have been seeking major nodal points by joining in privatization programs implemented
around the world. The latest trend could change the way the public sector finances port
development. As an interesting case, a Private Finance Initiative applied for container
terminal construction in Japan was discussed. In this case, PSA Corp. of Singapore
participated in a concession on the port of Kita-Kyushu, and opened up a completely
new way to make private involvement in seaports.
Hideki MURAKAMI (Kobe University) analyzed “Airline Alliances: An Approachfrom Microeconomic Theory” which theoretically analysed the effects of a strategic
alliance by two small airlines on their own profit, a rival’s profit, and economic welfare.
The rival is assumed to be a gigantic Gulliver. The results are that small carriers willmore likely prefer to agree on a strategic alliance and economic welfare will also be
improved as the degree of product differentiation, cost competitiveness, and economies
of density become strong, although the rival’s profit could decrease due to competition.
Therefore, our political implication is that government has to consolidate infrastructures
so that small airlines’ alliances are promoted.
Masashi SHINODA (Japan Maritime Research Institute) discussed “The ShippingMarket toward a the New Competitive World”. A new shipping market is being formedby changes of the environment of shippers. Shipper industries’ globalization has brought
about changes in the competitive environment of shipping world, such as new mergersof shipping firms and qualitative changes in the carrier alliances.
Shippers are now asking for cost reduction, large-scale investment and high-grade
transport services under globalization. To meet these shippers’ needs, mergers andinternational tie-ups are now being carried out in the worlds shipping firms to provide
shippers with excellent transport service and stable, reasonable freight rates.
If shippers want more cost-reduction and high-grade transport service, only thoseshipping firms which can meet such shippers’ needs will be able to survive. Intercarrier
competition will continue to the utmost.
What kind of carriers will be able to benefit? There is no doubt that reform will be49undertaken anew to set up a transport system in line with shippers’ needs. What is
important is to establish such a system ahead of rival carriers.
3) 36th Annual Meeting
The 36th annual meeting was held at Kansai University in October of 2002. The
common subject for the symposium was Management Issues on Shipping and Aviation
under the New Environment. A summary is as follows:
Shigeru YOSHIDA (Kobe University of Mercantile Marine) considered “Network
Effects of Alliances in International Transportation”. The aim of this study was toanalyze the difference of network effects by alliance formation in international liner
shipping and airline industries. First of all, the network economy by the alliances wasplaced in order from the viewpoint of economy of scale. After observing the changes of
network service attributes by the alliance formation, the network effects were
empirically analyzed on demand and supply sides. We concluded as follows. As it isvery difficult for each airline to design freely the route structure to demonstrate theeffect of aircraft size, the route of pursuing high frequency service to fulfill customer
satisfaction is taken. For liner shipping, as well as for airlines, customers are acquiredby increasing the number of service points and frequencies. However, an importantvariable of demand functions for liner shipping is average cost or average ship size, andthe influences of service points and frequencies are relatively small.
Eiji SHIOMI (Chuo University) discussed “Alliance and M&A in the International
Airline Industry”. Alliances have spread rapidly in international airline markets from1990 onwards. We tend to think that this trend has been attributed to constraints of theinternational airline regime. So alliance has been considered as the second best andpassive strategy in the place of M&A. However, it has some strategic predominanceover M&A.
This paper conducted a comparative study of alliance and M&A in international
airline markets. Advantages and disadvantages of each strategy were reviewed, andsome factors which would influence the future trend were explored. It was pointed outthat the future trend would be effected by regulatory liberalization, alleviation ofanti-trust and some attributes of alliance groups.
Nobuaki ENDO (Tokyo University of Mercantile Marine) analyzed “Progress in
Liberalization of International Air Transport Service and Next Step”. This study
reviewed progress in and remaining issues of liberalization of international air transport
services, and subsequent market transformation. Three major findings were drawn. First,
in the 1990s, liberalization was significantly promoted. There were three major
backgrounds to this. First, the so-called open skies bilateral framework, which abolished50

entry and price regulation, was established between the U.S. and other countries.
Second, the multilateral framework between the U.S. and four APEC countries and theEU single aviation policy loosened capital regulation and improved market access in theintra-APEC and EU markets. Third, policy-makers, airlines and passengers now
commonly understand the positive impact of the liberalization on the market. Then,following the liberalization, in the international aviation market, major carriers havedeveloped strategies of entering trunk routes and routes connecting to hub airports, andforming cross-border alliances. Finally, the remaining policy issues includeanti-competitive behavior and practice, a review of cross-border ownership,commitment to multilateral liberalization, and state aid and the role of government in
the industry’s rationalization.
Hideko TERADA (Hiroshima City University) argued about “An Institutional
Analysis of the Public Sector’s Role in Port Development: A Case Study of Port
Planning in Hong Kong”. This article is concerned with a set of processes whereby
public decision-makers are engaged in logical prediction of port development. It took up
a case of port planning in Hong Kong, and overviewed the way the government and theprivate sector reduced planning risks in port construction, focusing on the institutional
aspects.
Historically, port development in Hong Kong has been carried out throughcollaboration between private enterprises and the government. “The trigger point
agreement” is the key relationship between the government and the port business
community. It intends to safeguard private investments in new container terminals andpartly transfer further port development to the private sector.
While the timing and scale of progress in port construction has been of concern tothe container terminal operators in Hong Kong, the government has a broader
perspective and has been involved in port planning aggressively since the 1990s.
The public sector’s role is not only a way of reviewing the future port plans as
accurately as possible, but of preventing port development from being rapidly
accelerated. Different types of uncertainty in cargo demand forecasting might be
avoided by the collaboration of the government and the private sector. But a Hong Kong
style solution is not a cure-all.
4) 37th Annual Meeting
The 37th annual meeting was held at Kobe University in October of 2003. The
common subject for the symposium was The Development of Asian PhysicalDistribution Systems and Logistics. A summary is as follows:
Katsuhiko HAYASHI (University of Marketing and Distribution Science) discussed

51

“The Role of Air Transportation in Horizontal Division of Labor in Asia”. Transnational
corporations have been searching for the best location for manufacturing parts andproducts according to their characteristics and established sophisticated systems ofhorizontal division of labor in Asia. The role of logistic management is getting more
important to bridge the gap of time and place through procurement, production, andsupply chain management (SCM) is important since it decreases total logistic costs andsupports postponement strategies. Providers of air freight service such as carriers,
forwarders, and integrators are required to tackle these shippers’ logistic needs. Some
problems of the service providers and institutional aspects for the future Asian airtransportation were discussed.
Toshinori NEMOTO (Hitotsubashi University) introduced “Planning Intermodal
Freight Transport System in Asia”. Since the 1990s, tremendous progress has been
made in international supply chains because of the globalizing economy and division oflabor. In order to enjoy the benefit of free trade, an intermodal freight transport system
is advocated and introduced, which can provide efficient just-in-time door-to-door
services in a more environmentally friendly manner.
In Europe and North America, the European Commission and the United States play
an important role in promoting the intermodal system for the continents with Free Trade
Agreements respectively. Asia, however, is slightly behind in establishing such
coordinating organizations to plan areawide freight transport policies. Rather thecountries are competing with each other to win transport hubs in the region.
This paper reviewed OECD research on institutional aspects of intermodal policies,
best practices in planning intermodal systems in EU and NAFTA, and freight transport
policies in Asian countries, and finally indicated necessary efforts to establish anintermodal freight transport system in Asia.
OH Yon-sik (Tomei Joho University) discussed “Local Port Development in WestJapan Area and the Port of Pusan−From the Viewpoint of International Hub Port
around East Asia” which aimed at verifying the effect on the international logistics
which local container port development brings about. At first, we classified theinternational logistics effect of a local port on demand stimulation and channel
conversion and measured it using the examples of four local container ports and the portof Kobe in Western Japan. Next, we viewed the changes in international logistics thatwere brought about by local port construction on the whole based on the analysis of
relevance with the port of Pusan.
To estimate the international logistics effects, we utilized the elasticity of theinternational logistics demand of the hinterland and the amount of handling via Kobe, tointernational container cargoes of local ports. As a result of estimation, the effect which52exploitation of the international container route of local ports brought about changed
with each region and port. But also it is hard to deny that local ports have evokedinternational logistics demand by the prefecture on the whole.
On the logistics channel effect, not only alternative relations but also
complementary relations were checked between local ports and the port of Kobe.
However, the greater portion of international logistics demand newly induced wasabsorbed to the new local container port, and finally, it can be said that port of Kobe isalready losing the centripetal force for new demand in this area.
Ryosuke MORIMURA (ex-Sanyo Electric Co.) argued about “An Observation about
Electronics and Logistics in East Asia (ASEAN, China and Japan) after the Asian
Currency Crisis”. This article represents the Maker-Shippers’ standpoint.
Nowadays, electronic industries are growing owing to worldwide demand. East Asia
is the biggest manufacturing area of electronics in the world. This area is mutually
deepening its industrial ties and manufacturers demand seamless distribution. Logistics
techniques (Just in Time, Supply Chain Management, etc.), IT back-upped, areprevailing.
Correspond to those trends, logistics in this area require parity development withindustries. So, investment to infrastructure and deregulation are very important. East
Asia can refer to the transportation policies of the EU. Electronics shippers pay close
attention to air cargo outbound and inland truckage.
Masafumi SHINODA (Japan Maritime Research Institute) considered “Approaches to
Logistics Business in China”. Even foreign-affiliated logistics service providers, whichhave been maintaining business relationships with shippers via international maritime
physical distribution services, have in recent years been focusing increasingly on theestablishment of domestic logistics systems. Logistics service providers will lag far
behind in global trade unless they come up with programs to meet the needs of shippers
on a long-term basis.
Regarding the state of logistics in China, most of the corporations that have set up
business in the country have pointed out that the legal and physical infrastructure
underpinning comprehensive logistics structures is still underdeveloped.
Companies’ complaints include the following:
1) Administrative problems, such as disputes over interest for bonded shipments bymunicipalities that are authorized to impose import tariffs on them;2) Insufficient standardization of business activities, as represented by the fact thateach region has different interpretation of laws that concern physical distribution
services;
3) Poor insurance systems, which keep interested parties from claiming

53

compensation;4) Unsatisfactory collection by logistics service providers of outstanding freightcharges owned by their customers; and
5) Business practices that focus more on connection that commercialism.
In order to overcome such challenges, it is essential for Japanese companies tochoose business partners that are knowledgeable about the prevailing circumstances in
China and which employ reliable Chinese staff.
It is also necessary to depend more utilization of information technology (IT) to
more smoothly promote the tracing, transferring, and intermodal transport of cargoes aswell as the collection of unpaid charges.
5) 38th Annual Meeting
The 38th annual meeting was held at Ryutsu Keizai University in October of 2004.
The common subject for the symposium was Competitive Advantage in Global
Logistics Industry. A summary is as follows:
Kunio MIYASHITA (University of Marketing and Distribution Science) analyzed“Comparative Advantage in Global Logistics Industry”. Since the 1990s the paralleldevelopment of space networks and information networks has generated a global scaleof efficient fields supported by time-space axes. In the period of global economy, it’s themost important for a firm to build up an original type of business model consistently
combining space networks with information networks. In comparison with the global
nature of current firm behavior, has the physical distribution industry prepared thenecessary conditions for the development of the global economy?
In order to analyze this theme, the current position of Japanese economy, regarded
popularly as the lost ten years, can be demonstrated. Contrary to the common view I
insist the recovery of the Japanese economy started in 1997 from the viewpoint of the
sea-air modes tradeoff patterns in international physical distribution. The Japanese
economy is already near to the maturity stage of its new life cycle, the growth of which
has been generated and promoted rather by the network system of physical distribution
than by the total distribution costs. The economy of SCM can be found in the threemajor economic ranges of Japan. The trend towards the SCM type of arm’s lengthtransaction is inevitable. In the world of SCM, third party logistics is the key role of thephysical distribution industry, so that carriers and forwarders have been confronted withkeen competition in this field. Who has the global comparative advantage depends on
the adaptability of the physical distribution industry to the SCM world in the regulatory
reform age dominated by the principle of the firm instead of the principle of the market.
Masatomo TANAKA (Monotsukuri University) took up “A Study of Relations

54

between Freight and Transit Term – J Cost Theory”. All shippers prefer cheaper freightrates and shorter transit terms. To meet the market demand for this cheaper freight rate,ship-owners have decided to build bigger container ships; some of them are bigger than
6,000 TEU. On the other hand, the shorter transit term seems to be ignored. Fast ships
once competed at more than 35 knots. Now, some newly-built container ships cruise
slower than 25 knots. The reason why slower ships have been recently introduced is thatno theory can clearly explain that both the transit term and freight rate are important toshippers.
This article introduced a new concept, “J cost”, which can clearly explain therelation between the transit term and the freight rate. This “J cost” shows that the freightrate is in proportion to the margin of a shipper and the transit term is in proportion to the
production term.
Makers are required to improve continuously their productivity in order to survive
and succeed in global competition.
This harsh competition forces the makers to reduce production terms and working
funds.
The “J cost” theory shows the ratio of the transit term over production termincreases if the transit term remains the same. Consequently, this new theory reveals
that the fixed transit term spoils some of the benefit produced on a manufacturing line.
Applying the “J cost” theory, we can easily and quantitatively conclude as follows:
1. It is not desirable that all container ships are huge and slow.
2. We need to have various types of container ships so that ship-owners can provide
the best ship that satisfies most the demand of load products.
Hiroshi HOSHINO (Kyushu University) discussed “Competitive Advantage in theLiner Shipping Industry – A Case of Evergreen Marine Corporation”. Strategic alliancesand “door-to-door” inter-modal services have been two major trends in the liner
shipping industry since the late 1980s. Major liner operators formed alliance groups forthe purpose of gaining cost advantage through economies of scale as well as providing
high quality services for their shipper individually. Because the container transport
service has matured in the last thirty years, operators have hardly been able to bringabout any differentiation of service. As a consequence, many traditional operators
including three out of the Major Six Japanese companies either left the market or weremerged by competitors.
Evergreen Marine Corporation (EMC), established in 1968 by Chairman Yung-Fa
Chang, became the world’s largest liner company in terms of carrying capacity in themid 1980s. In contrast to the trends in the industry, EMC concentrates its liner businesson ‘port-to-port service’ and persists in independent operation. Their success is not

55

limited to shipping business, and has expanded to the establishment of Taiwan’s leading
airline and a 5-star hotel chain.
Analysis of their competitive advantage derived from their highly standardized andefficient operation and concentration on basic sea-transport service would draw animplication for the study of strategy in liner shipping.
Kazuharu OIDE (Nittsu Research Institute and Consulting Inc.) considered “WhatCompetitive Global Logistics Service Is Provided to Customers by Non-actual Carriers(such as Forwarders)?” With the expansion of Japanese firms’ overseas activities, thedemand for qualified global logistics services is rapidly growing. Broadening the SCM
concept has also helped to accelerate this trend. Logistics providers, in other words
Non-actual carriers including forwarders, have taken various measures in order to
respond to customers’ high level requirements. The typical measures provided bylogistics providers have focused on developing 1) overseas networks 2) IT support
3) Inventory control 4) VMI methods 5) Local and regional transport. Unfortunately,
it seems difficult for small and medium sized providers to carry out such measures
because preparation cost for them is relatively expensive. However, we can findsuccessful small and medium sized providers as far as they can provide specific service
that no one else can provide.
Lastly, the 39th annual meeting was held in October 2005 at Osaka Gakuin
University with the common subject of The Frontier of Physical Distribution in Asia.
(Shigeru YOSHIDA, Kobe University)

56

THE ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY (AMP)
1. Overview
The Academy of Management Philosophy (AMP) was founded in 1984 with about
150 members. Yoshiaki SHIMABUKURO (then professor of Toyo University) was elected
as the first president. The Society members have increased constantly in number, sothat the current number of members is over 350. Regional activities have grown withthe expanding numbers of membership and seven local chapters have been formed(Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kanto, Chubu, Kansai, Kyushu, and Okinawa).
Membership is categorized as Academic and Corporate Members. An individualwith an interest in management philosophy can apply for academic membership withthe recommendations of two members. An academic member is required to havescholarly publications and be engaged in academic research. An Institution with aninterest in management philosophy and agreeing with AMP activities can apply as a
Corporate member.
The primary objectives of the Academy today are to enhance the research andapplication of various subjects regarding management philosophy, to plan exchange of
information among members and with related associations, to contribute to theestablishment of management philosophy and the development of industry, and toestablish principles for corporations based on dignity of life and humanity.
The Academy aims to play the key role of promoting academic research inmanagement philosophy through the connection and cooperation with academic fields
and through publication and activities facilitating communication and cooperation
among specialists on management. The Academy also offers its members opportunities
to exchange information on topics relevant to its goals and supports a variety ofacademic activities, some of which appear below.
・ To establish a society based on dignity of life and humanity andcontribute largely to society through research on management
philosophy
・ To promote management philosophy and to function as the source ofknowledge regarding practical use of management philosophy
・ To provide a place for communication through research projects,
symposiums, workshops, lectures, and presentation meetings and toshare knowledge and information among the membership throughvarious activities
・ To have a long and cooperative relationship with organizations engaged57

in similar pursuits and to keep in contact and hold joint conferences or
research with related societies.

2. Recent activities
The main activities of the Academy are holding conferences and publishing journals.
The academy holds various types of conference such as its annual conference, regional
meetings, joint conferences and symposia. The Academy publishes The Bulletin (Keiei
Tetsugaku Ronshu), The Journal of Management Philosophy (Keiei Tetsugaku Journal)
and semi-annual newsletters.

2-1 Annual conferences (1995-2005)
The annual conference is held usually in September. Places of the Conference vary.
In the beginning, Tokyo was the sole venue of conventions, but with organizational
growth came the need for geographical dispersion.
The conference program usually consists of plenary sessions on management
philosophy and concurrent sessions. The annual conference in 2005, for instance, had
three plenary sessions and sixteen papers as concurrent sessions. Themes of plenary
sessions at the 22nd annual conference were: Challenges to the Establishment;
Challenges to New Markets; and Challenges to Conquer Failure. Three distinguishedpresidents/founders of corporations with unique management philosophy (Ichinokura
Co. Ltd., Seven-Eleven Japan Co. Ltd. and Yoshinoya D&C Co. Ltd.) were invited tojoin a panel in each of the three plenary sessions.
A list of Conference themes and host universities for the past ten years is as follows:
12th (1995): Management Philosophy Today in Japan ― Reconstructionof Management Systems, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo.
13th (1996): The Search for a New Management Philosophy ― onInformation, Employment and Environment, Rikkyo
University, Tokyo.
14th (1997): Environmental Issues and Management Philosophy,
Tezukayama University, Nara.
15th (1998): Management Philosophy and Regional Activation, Meio
University, Okinawa.
16th (1999): What is Management Philosophy? ― Its Direction andTasks, Chuo Gakuin University, Chiba.
58

17th (2000): Asking Management Philosophy, Niigata Keiei University,
Niigata.
18th (2001): Management and Science, Kansai University, Osaka.
19th (2002): A New Search for Management Philosophy, Waseda
University, Tokyo.
20th (2003): Is Management Philosophy Dead? Chukyo University, Aichi.
21st (2004): Living through Management: The Functions of the Executive,
Aomori Public College, Aomori.
22nd (2005): Challenges for Management Philosophy, Meiji Gakuin
University, Tokyo.
In addition to the annual conference, the Academy regularly holds regional meetings(chiho bukai) once or twice a year in Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kanto, Chubu, Kansai, Kyushu
and Okinawa. A regional meeting usually includes a special lecture and papers.
Distinguished local businesspersons are invited for lectures. For example, Ms. Kuniko
KITAZAWA, President of Wakodo Co.Ltd. accepted our invitation for the Kanto region
meeting in 2004, Mr. Yoshitaka IMAMURA, president of Daiden Co. Ltd. and Chairmanof the Association of Corporate Executives of Fukui, for the Kansai-Chubu joint
meeting in 2003. The Academy also welcomes occasional guests for special open
lectures.

2-2 Joint conferences/symposia
Through its numerous external activities, the Academy has made valuable
contributions to the field of management philosophy. It should be noted that the
Academy has a cooperative relationship with organizations engaged in similar pursuits;e.g., the Pan-Pacific Business Association and University of Shanghai for Science andTechnology (USST). It is important to encourage the exchange and dissemination ofmanagement philosophy, and to promote understanding and cooperation between themembers.
More formal cooperation between the Academy and University of Shanghai for
Science and Technology started in 2004. The Academy held the first international
symposium with the theme of The Role of Management Philosophy between Japan and
China in the 21st Century in Shanghai in September 2005 to spread Japanesemanagement philosophy internationally and exchange information. The Academy send
the president Koji OHIRA (Meiji Gakuin University) as the keynote speaker, Isuke KOTO
(Waseda University) and Izumi MITSUI (Nihon University) as discussants. Three59

discussants were from USST. More than fifteen members from the Academy
participated, and over one hundred academics and business persons in China also
attended the symposium.
The most recent case of national cooperation, which commenced in 2004 and wasformalized in 2005, is with the Japan Society of Foodservice Studies (JSFS). The firstevent in cooperation with JSFS was the joint plenary session at the AMP annual
conference in 2005. We are eagerly expecting to hold joint activities, and discussing
with each other some problems confronted in the theory and practice of management
philosophy in the food industry. Moreover, we hope to have a long and cooperative
relationship with other organizations engaged in similar pursuits and to keep in contact,
collaborating in joint conferences or related research.

2-3 Publications
The Academy annually publishes The Bulletin and The Journal of Management
Philosophy (JMP). The Bulletin presents the papers presented at the last annual
conference. In 2004, the academy started to issue JMP, to publish unique research andapplication results by academics and professionals. The fields of contents covermanagement philosophy research broadly from management history to emerging
research fields. JMP also includes interviews with businesspersons. For example, Mr.
Kazuo INAMORI, the former Chairperson of Kyocera Corp. gave an interview and related
his management philosophy and his experiences in Volume Two.
In 2003, the Academy published What is Management Philosophy? (Keiei
Tetsugaku to wa nani ka, Bunshindo, 2003) in order to celebrate the 20th anniversary of
the Academy. This publication aims to promote research on management philosophy
and related fields based on the discussion at the annual conference. We sincerely hopethat the journal and other publications will provide opportunities to enlighten
everyone’s mind for research, education, and business mutually, toward the firm
establishment of the Academy.

2-4 The AMP Award (Kenkyu Shorei Sho)
The academy established an official award in 1995. The aim of the award ishonoring and encouraging young researchers (under 40 years old) to present papers. The
committee selects from the papers by young researchers presented at the last annual
conference. In 2004 three researchers were awarded a prize of 50,000 yen.
We believe that the award has significantly contributed to the progress of60management philosophy research and its application to management practice. In fact,
since the establishment of the award, numbers of young researchers presenting papers at
the annual conference have been growing steadily.
3. Further direction
The next annual conference in 2006 is scheduled at Hokkai Gakuen University,
Hokkaido. The Academy is now negotiating to hold a symposium and joint conferencein the near future with institutions overseas.
The Academy will commemorate its 25th anniversary in 2008, and has just started
organizing a committee to publish a book on management philosophy to celebrate its
anniversary. It will be scheduled for publication by the end of 2007.
We are experiencing major corporate crimes and scandals recently in Japan.
Needless to say, management philosophy is deeply related to them. The Academy has
dealt with such issues at its conference and offered comments on management
philosophy to society and corporate leaders. It is becoming more and more importantfor corporations and corporate leaders to identify their management philosophy. We
believe that the activities of the Academy are contributing to finding the solution.
(Yasuhiko ISHII, Takachiho University)

61THE ACADEMIC ASSOCIATION FOR ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCE
1. Brief History
The Academic Association for Organizational Science has a history of more thanforty-five years. In 1959, the Association was founded by Keiji BABA (The Universityof Tokyo) who thought that it was important to establish a micro foundation for various
social sciences. He focused on the level of a focal organization and the human behavior
in it and fostered interdisciplinary studies. After the demise of BABA in 1961, Susumu
TAKAMIYA (Sophia University) became the second president of the Association in 1963.
He expanded the activities based on the founding philosophy and established the basic
system of the Association. After TAKAMIYA passed away, Yasuo OKAMOTO (Aoyama
Gakuin University) took the reins as the third president in 1987 and witnessed a growth
in membership. Koichi SHIMOKAWA (Hosei University) succeeded OKAMOTO to become
the fourth president in 1993, while Ikujiro NONAKA (Hitotsubashi University) became
the fifth president in 1996. Hiroyuki ITAMI (Hitotsubashi University) has been leading
the Association as the sixth president since 2002. Under the leadership of thesepresidents, various new experiments described below have been executed to promote
the activities of the Association.
Due to various efforts throughout its history, the Association has developed
dramatically. Now the number of members is 1,850 and that of supporting companies is
13 as of May 2005. Not only size but also diversity of the membership has been
increasing. As meaningful studies in organizational science are believed to requirevarious approaches, the membership body has always been intended to be diverse,
comprising management and organization theorists, economists, psychologists,sociologists, and political scientists. They mostly identify as behavioral scientists in a
broader sense, but beyond them, some members from an engineering backgroundconstitute another group. Board members (both elected and nominated) are intended tobe representative of multiple disciplines. As such, the Academic Association for
Organizational Science has salient characteristics as compared with those otherassociations that rely on a single discipline in conventional social sciences.
2. Major Activities
The Academic Association for Organizational Science holds two types of annual
meetings: one held every autumn featuring a specific topic, and the other held every
spring providing opportunities for members to present their recent studies. We haveexperimented with new forms of presentations such as panel discussion, sessions for
doctoral students, sessions to discuss contemporary topics in organizations with62

practitioners, and so on. These are new forms to facilitate interaction among memberswith different disciplinary backgrounds; we have also often invited non-members fromboth the academic and the practitioner’s world with distinctive achievement in theirfields. In addition, we present a doctoral consortium that is aimed at passing down
research skills from outstanding senior researchers to doctoral students. They havesucceeded in stimulating the younger members.
The Association issues an academic journal called Organizational Science (Soshiki
Kagaku). Organizational Science aims to be a synthetic theoretical journal in the social
sciences. The first volume was published in 1967, and it has been published quarterly
since 1968. The most recent issue (published in June, 2005) is already volume 38,
number 4. Each issue consists of submitted papers on free topics and invited papers on a
specific topic, which is selected by the editorial board. Most authors are members of the
Association, but non-members including foreign researchers are invited depending on
the special issue. Submitted papers have to be anonymously reviewed for possible
publication. Moreover, we exploit a senior editor system to shorten the referee cycle,
help submitters to revise their papers, and promote submissions. The editorial board istrying to increase the number of submitted papers; more submitted papers are expected
to be published than invited papers in future.
In addition to the two annual meetings, we have several one-day meetings a year.
They used to be held for a couple of hours on a weekday evening, but now are held on
Saturday afternoon to give time for two presentations and intensive discussion on them.
In 2004, the Association also held symposia entitled “Capability Formation of JapaneseFirms” (held in March, 2004) and “Design Rules: The Power of Modularity” (held in
December, 2004), which were promoted by the administrative office of the Association,
Tokyo. Moreover, regional sub-organizations of the Association such as Kansai (theOsaka, Kyoto, Kobe and adjacent area), Chubu (Nagoya and its vicinity), and Kyushu
are also active with several meetings a year.
In October 1984, the Association launched an annual project for rewarding the best
books and papers in the held of organizational science, to support and encourage quality
works. The awards were renamed the Takamiya Prizes in 1986 in memory of thecontribution of the second president, Susumu TAKAMIYA. In each year, a committee isorganized to review books and papers nominated for the award. Moreover, theAssociation financially supports several collaborative studies by members, selected
through the submission of research proposals.
3. Current Research Concerns
The Academic Association for Organizational Science deals with various research63topics, partly because of its multidisciplinary nature and partly because of its sensitivity
to the social and economic environmental changes in the real world. While there areseveral ways to describe the current research concerns of the Association, a cursory
observation of current activities will reveal several research interests shared among
members.
First, we have begun to focus on the discovery of Japanese-made concepts that are
empirically viable and theoretically robust. One of the most noted concepts is the notion
of “organizational capability formation” which affords some world-class Japanesemanufactures great competitive advantage. Many studies associated with capability
formation management have been executed both in Japan and throughout the world.
Second, reflecting the concern with maturity of existing industries, globalization of theeconomy, development of information technology, and collaboration amongorganizations, many researchers have studied innovation (product development andtechnology management), entrepreneurship, global management, and networks. Third,
there seems to be a growing interest in various research methods, probably because themembers of the association, especially the younger generation, realize the importance of
empirical studies.
Another way to delineate the current research concerns of the association would beto review (1) special topics chosen for annual meetings, (2) special issues ofOrganizational Science, and (3) books and papers awarded the Takamiya Prizes inrecent years.
3. 1 Special topics chosen for annual meetings
As described above, one of the two annual meetings is to present the special topics,
which reflect the common interests of the association at that time. The topics and thesites of the meetings in the past fifteen years are as follows:* Values and Organizations in a Transformational Period, Kyoto University, 1990
* Globalization and Organization, Waseda University, 1991
* Reexamination of Organizations and Institutions, Kobe University, 1992
* Processes of Organizational Changes, Nagoya University, 1993
* Relationship between Organizations and Individuals, Nihon University, 1994
* In Search of New Paradigms in Organizational Integration, Hosei University,
1995* Asian Networking, Kyushu University, 1996
* Invisible Elements in Organizations, Osaka University, 1997
* Regional Society and Innovation, Tohoku University, 1998
* Knowledge Creation in Organization Theory: Past, Present, and Future, Kyoto

64University, 1999
* Grand Design of Organization Theory in the Twenty-First Century, Tokyo
Metropolitan University, 2000
* Will Japanese Companies Change? : Strategy, System, Human Resource
Management, Kobe University, 2001
* Dynamic Interaction between Organization and Strategy: Reflecting
Management, Hitotsubashi University, 2002
* The Era of Organizational Ethics, Hiroshima University, 2003
* Medical Care, Welfare, and Management, Nihon Fukushi University, 2004
Looking at the sessions in the Fortieth Anniversary Meeting (held in November,1999 at Kyoto University) might help to understand the research concerns of the
Association, because they reviewed the research development in the past and present
and predicted the research direction in the future, although the structure of the meeting
was not the usual one. The sessions of the meeting were broadly classified into threegroups associated with three aspects of organization theory: Organizational Form,
Organizations and Individuals, and Organizational Process.
In the group on Organizational Form, the first session, entitled “Start with Barnard”
was chaired by Katsuyasu KATO (Aomori Public College), and had three presentations
by Hisao KAWABATA (Kumamoto Gakuen University), Haruo MURATA (Momoyama
Gakuin University), and Motokichi INABA (Seijo University). The second session,
entitled “Order Creation and Power,” was chaired by Naoki WAKABAYASHI (Tohoku
University), and had three presentations by Kiyoaki SHIOTSUGU (Kyushu University),
Hiroshi MITO (Yokohama National University), and Takenori TAKASE (Kansai
University). The third session, entitled “Bureaucracy and its Development,” was chaired
by Kotaro KUWADA (Tokyo Metropolitan University) and had three presentations by
Toshio KOBAYASHI (Osaka University), Tamiki KISHIDA (Nagoya University), andNobuo TAKAHASHI (The University of Tokyo).
In the group on Organizations and Individuals, the first session was “Tripartite Talk:
Reexamination of the Micro Theory of Organizations” by Toshihiro KANAI (Kobe
University), Masao TAO (Kyoto University), and Takako MINAMI (Keio University).
The second session was a symposium entitled “The Manager” by Yasuo OKAMOTO(Aoyama Gakuin University), Ryuho SHIMIZU (Tokyo International University), Kenshi
YAMAKURA (Yokohama National University), and Yoshiya TERAMOTO (Japan Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology, Hokuriku). The third session, entitled “A View of
NPO Management,” was chaired by Yoshiyuki SATO (Waseda University) and had threepresentations by Hiromitsu KOJIMA (Hokkaido University), Kanji TANIMOTO(Hitotsubashi University), and Kiyoshi KAWAGUCHI (Ritsumeikan University).

65

In the group on Organizational Process, the first session was a symposium on“Innovation.” Ken KUSUNOKI (Hitotsubashi University) chaired the session andTsuyoshi NUMAGAMI (Hitotsubashi University), Yaichi AOSHIMA (Hitotsubashi
University), and Kentaro NOBEOKA (Kobe University) made the presentation. The
second session, entitled “Learning and Culture,” was chaired by Akihiro OKUMURA(Keio University), and had three presentations by Seiichi OTAKI (Tohoku University),
Koichiro HIOKI (Kyoto University), and Hisachika FURUKAWA (Kyushu University).
The third session, entitled “Self-organization and Complexity,” was chaired by Akira
TOKUYASU (Hosei University) and had three presentations by Tamito YOSHIDA (Chuo
University), Takatoshi IMADA (Tokyo Institute of Technology), and Hiroshi DEGUCHI(Kyoto University).
Following the nine sessions, we had a general discussion session, which wasmoderated by Tadao KAGONO (Kobe University) on Organizational Form, by Isao
AKAOKA (Kyoto University) on Organizations and Individuals, and by Ikujiro NONAKA
on Organizational Process. The final session of the meeting was a commemorative
lecture entitled “Research on Organizations: The Past, Present, and Future” by J. G.
MARCH (Stanford University) who is one of the most influential scholars of organization
study in the world.
3. 2 Special issues of Organizational Science
Organizational Science (Soshiki Kagaku) intends to be an integrating vehicle forvarious branches of social science to discuss theoretical and empirical analyses oforganizational phenomenon. Normally, it features special issues in each volume. Below
are the issues specially covered by the journal in the last eight years, which will indicate
some of the Association’s current research concerns:* New Viewpoints in Organizational Studies (Vol. 31, No. 1, 1997)* Meaning and Value of Organizations (Vol. 31, No. 2, 1997)* Variety and Possibility of Organizations (Vol. 31, No. 3, 1998)* The Invisible Elements in Organizations: Looking for a New Paradigm inInformation and Knowledge Society (Vol. 31, No. 4, 1998)* The Management of Non-Profit Organizations (Vol. 32, No. 1, 1998)* Confronting Market-Centrism (Vol. 32, No, 2, 1998)* Program Science: Are the Social Sciences Nomothetic? (Vol. 32, No. 3, 1999)* Regional Society and Innovation (Vol. 32, No. 4, 1999)* Metaphors in Organization Theory (Vol. 33, No. 1, 1999)* Frontiers of Career Research (Vol. 33, No. 2, 1999)* Beauty and Ethics in Organizations (Vol. 33, No. 3, 2000)

66

* Knowledge Creation in Organization Theory: Past, Present, and Future (Vol.
33, No. 4, 2000)* University / Industry Cooperation and Creation of New Technology (Vol. 34,
No. 1, 2000)* Agent-Based Approach (Vol. 34, No. 2, 2000)* Performance-Based Human Resource Management: Concerns and Prospects(Vol. 34, No. 3, 2001)* New Directions of Organization Theory in the 21st Century (Vol. 34, No. 4,
2001)* Alliance and Outsourcing (Vol. 35, No. 1, 2001)* New Trends in New Product Development Research (Vol. 35, No. 2, 2001)* Organizing of Patent Strategy (Vol. 35, No. 3, 2002)* Will Japanese Companies Change? (Vol. 35, No. 4, 2002)* Accelerative Creation of Knowledge Assets (Vol. 36, No. 1, 2002)* The Transformation of Industrial Accumulation and Its Challenge to Reform(Vol. 36, No. 2, 2002)* Institutions and Organizations (Vol. 36, No. 3, 2003)* Dynamic Interaction between Organization and Strategy: Reflecting
Management (Vol. 36, No, 4, 2003)* New Trends of Psychological Research in Organizational Studies (Vol. 37, No.
1, 2003)* Organization Theory of Meaning (Vol. 37, No. 2, 2003)* Reconsidering the Diversification Strategy (Vol. 37, No. 3, 2004)* Ethics In and Around Organizations: Ethical Issues in Organizational Daily
Life (Vol. 37, No. 4, 2004)* Dynamism of Japanese Firms (Vol. 38, No. 1, 2004)* Organizational Failure and Evaluation of Organization (Vol. 38, No. 2, 2004)* The Dynamics of Industrial Cluster Creation (Vol. 38, No. 3, 2005)* Medical Care, Welfare, and Management (Vol. 38, No. 4, 2005)
Since the most recent issue (Vol. 38, No. 4) reproduces revised versions of thepapers presented in the November 2004 meeting, the next recent issue is chosen toillustrate the contents of the journal.
In Vol. 38, No. 3 of Organizational Science, there are four papers for the special
issue on “The Dynamics of Industrial Cluster Creation,” and two other submitted papers.
The papers for the special issue are as follows: (1) “Significance of Industrial Clusters
and Actual Problems,” by Akira YAMASAKI (Kyushu University), (2) “Formation ofIndustrial Clusters and Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Dynamics in Creation Process67

of Sapporo IT Clusters,” by Kazuyori KANAI (Osaka University), (3) “Clustering andFirm Formation: The Clustering of Software Firms in Austin, Texas,” by Michi
FUKUSHIMA (Tohoku University), (4) “Chain Reactions of Spin-off and Learning in
Entrepreneurial Action,” by Kyosuke INAGAKI (Yokohama City University). Two othersubmitted papers are as follows: (5) “Principles of Increased Productivity ThroughCell-Based Assembly,” by Hiroshi OZAWA (Seinan Gakuin University), (6) “Effects ofInformation Technology on International Transfer of the Japanese Production System:
Case of the Manufacturing Subsidiary of Denso at Tennessee,” by Yukiko FUJIWARA(Kobe Gakuin University). Besides these articles, two essays also appear in the issue:“Three Patterns of Evolutionary Change of Discipline,” by Moriaki TSUCHIYA (Keiei
Kenkyujo), “Individual Combat and Group Warfare,” by Takashi SHIMIZU (The
University of Tokyo).
3. 3 Takamiya Prize winners
To list the works awarded the Takamiya Prizes is another way to indicate theresearch concerns of the Association. The prizes are awarded to books and journal
articles. The award-winning books in the last twelve years are as follows:* 1989 Book Award: Nobuo TAKAHASHI, Design of Adaptive Organizations,
Models and Empirical Research, London, 1987
* 1990 Book Award: Tamio HATTORI, Management Development in Korea(Kankoku no Keiei Hatten), Tokyo, 1988
* 1991 Book Award: Masao TAO, Organization and Management of Public Service
Operations: Theory and Practices of Local Governments (Gyosei Service no
Soshiki to Kanri: Chiho Jichitai ni okeru Riron to Jissai), Tokyo, 1990
* 1992 Book Award: Toshio KOBAYASHI, Requisites for Legitimacy (Seito-sei no
Joken), Kyoto, 1990
* 1993 Book Award: Toshihiro KANAI, In Search of the Transformational Middles:
A Strategy and Innovation Driven Managerial Behavior (Henkaku-gata Middle
no Tankyu: Senryaku Kakushin Shiko no Kanrisha Kodo), Tokyo, 1991
* 1994 Book Award: Hajime OTA, Professionals and Organizations: Indirect
Integration of Organization and Individual (Professional to Soshiki: Soshiki to
Kojin no Kansetsu-teki Togo), Tokyo, 1993
* 1995 Book Award: Toshiki SATO, Modernity Organizations, and Capitalism(Kindai, Soshiki, Shihon-shugi) Tokyo, 1993; Junjiro SHINTAKU, Competitive
Strategies of Japanese Firms (Nihon Kigyo no Kyoso Senryaku), Tokyo, 1994;
Toyoharu TANAKA, Sociological Studies in Organizational Change of Local
Governments in Japan (Chiho Gyosei Kanryo-sei ni okeru Soshiki Henkaku no

68

Shakaigaku-teki Kenkyu), Tokyo, 1994
* 1996 Book Award: Shigeru ASABA, Competitive and Cooperative Strategies(Kyoso to Kyoryoku no Senryaku), Tokyo, 1995; Iwao TAKA, Studies in H A.
Simon’s Works (H. A. Simon Kenkyu), Tokyo, 1995
* No award for book section in 1997
* 1998 Book Award: Kentaro NOBEOKA, Multi-project Strategy (Multi-project
Senryaku), Tokyo, 1996; Takahiro FUJIMOTO, Evolutionary Theory of
Production Systems (Seisan System no Shinka-ron), Tokyo, 1997
* 1999 Book Award: Hideharu CHUJO, The Concept of Organization (Soshiki no
Gainen) Tokyo, 1998
* 2000 Book Award: Tsutomu HARADA, Management of Knowledge
Transformation (Chishiki Tenkan no Keieigaku), Tokyo, 1999; Tsuyoshi
NUMAGAMI, History of Liquid Crystal Display Technology (Ekisho Display no
Gijutsu Kakushin-shi), Tokyo, 1999
* 2001 Book Award: Katsuhiko NAGASE, Strategies for Decision Marking (Ishi
Kettei no Strategy), Tokyo, 1999; Susumu OGAWA, The Logic of Innovation
Creation (Innovation no Hassei Riron), Tokyo, 2000
* No awards for book section in 2002 and 2003
* 2004 Book Award: Kenichi SHINOHARA, American Labor Relations in an Era of
Change (Tenkan-ki no America Roshi Kankei), Kyoto, 2003
* 2005 Book Award: Kazuhiro MISHINA, The Logic of Strategy Failure (Senryaku
Fuzen no Ronri), Tokyo, 2004
The award-winning journal articles in the same period are as follows:* 1989 Article Award: Toshihiro KANAI, “Development and Functions of
Networking Organizations in the Entrepreneurial Community (Kigyo-sha
Community ni okeru Networking Soshiki no Seisei to Kino),” Annals of School ofBusiness Administration, Kobe University (Kenkyu Nenpo), XXXIII, 1987;
Masamitsu TANAKA, “Organized Anarchy and Technological Development(Soshikika sareta Muchitsujo to Gijutsu Kakushin),” Keizaigaku (Tohoku
Gakuin Ronshu), 107, 1987
* No awards for article section from 1990 to 1992
* 1993 Article Award: Kotaro KUWADA, “Strategic Learning and Long-term
Adaptation of Organization (Strategic Learning to Soshiki no Choki-teki
Tekio),” Organizational Science (Soshiki Kagaku), XXV-1, 1991
* No awards for article section in 1994 and 1995
* 1996 Article Award: Tsuyoshi NUMAGAMI, “A Critical Note on the Possibility of69

Establishing Invariant Laws in Management Studies (Macro Gensho Hosoku
Kakuritsu no Kano-sei),” Organizational Science (Soshiki Kagaku), IIXXX-3,
1995* 1997 Article Award: Motohiro MORISHIMA, “Evolution of White-Collar Human
Resource Management in Japan,” Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations,VII, 1996* 1998 Article Award: Masaru KARUBE, “Institutions and Corporate Strategy in theJapanese and US Semiconductor Industries (Nichibei Handotai Sangyo ni okeru
Seido to Kigyo Senryaku),” Organizational Science (Soshiki Kagaku), XXXI-1,
1997* 1999 Article Award: Tsutomu HARADA, “Interpenetration of General Purpose
Technology and Special Purpose Technology (Hanyo-Senyo Gijutsu no Sogo
Shinto),” Organizational Science (Soshiki Kagaku), XXXI-4, 1998; Fumie ANDO,“Organizational Learning and a Navigation Map in the Organization (Soshiki
Gakushu to Soshiki-nai Chizu no Keisei),” Organizational Science (Soshiki
Kagaku), XXXII-1, 1998
* 2000 Article Award: Toshihiko KATO, “Structuration Theory of Technological
Systems (Gijutsu System no Kozo-ka Riron),” Organizational Science (Soshiki
Kagaku), XXXIII- 1, 1999; Takashi SHIMIZU, “An Event History Analysis ofMergers (Gappei Kodo no Event History Bunseki),” Organizational Science(Soshiki Kagaku), XXXII-3, 1999
* 2001 Article Award: Kenichi KUWASHIMA, “Pharmaceutical R&D Process andOrganizational Capabilities (Iyaku-hin no Kenkyu Kaihatsu Process ni okeru
Soshiki Nouryoku),” Organizational Science (Soshiki Kagaku), XXXIII-2, 1999;
Tomofumi AMANO, “International Divisions of Labor and Corporate
Restructuring (Kokusai Bungyo to Tenkan Kodo),” Organizational Science(Soshiki Kagaku), XXXIII-3, 2000
* 2002 Article Award: Minoru SHIMAMOTO, “The Niche Created by Concentrationof Resources (Shigen no Shuchu ni yoru Kangeki),” Organizational Science(Soshiki Kagaku), XXXIV-4, 2001; Keiko YOKOYAMA, “Collaboration Between
Corporations in a Non-Profit Organization and the New Corporate Philanthropy(NPO Setsuritsu ni yoru Kigyo-kan Kyodo to Kigyo Shakai Koken no
Shin-tenkai),” Organizational Science (Soshiki Kagaku), XXXIV-4, 2001
* 2003 Article Award: Masaru KARUBE, “Two Types of Technological Evolution
in the Japanese and US High Performance Computing Industries (Nichibei HPC
Sangyo ni okeru Futatsu no Seino Shinka),” Organizational Science (Soshiki
Kagaku), XXXV-2, 200170

* No award for article section in 2004
* 2005 Article Award: Yuji HORIKAWA, “Dualism of Technology (Gijutsu no
Nijusei),” Organizational Science (Soshiki Kagaku), XXXVII-2, 2003
4. Future challenges
There are a few foreseeable problems that we have to tackle in the future. In the
structural change of the Japanese economy, new management systems are being sought.
Responding to it, we need new Japanese-made concepts of management systems. It isneedless to say that steady empirical research is necessary as well to test the viability of
the concepts.
Second, partly because of the reform of educational systems, the number of doctoral
students is dramatically increasing. On the other hand, each university seeks for new
faculty with a strong capability both in research and in teaching. Consequently it ismore difficult for doctoral students to get a job. So far, the association has provided
opportunities for them to present their research accomplishments; however, we need tomake more efforts to foster talented students. New experiments such as doctoral
consortia to improve research skills with each other or sessions to discuss teaching
methods might be effective.
Third, due to the practical nature of organizational science, the Association has tobuild up stronger ties with the business community. Collaborative ties with business
communities are very important not only to raise more financial support from thebusiness community but also to find the right problems to be tackled. For this purpose,
the Association introduced corporate membership to support its activities; however, thenumber of supporting companies has fallen to 13. The Association has to involve thosepractitioners who are responsible for running various organizations in Japan and othercountries.
Moreover, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government acknowledged the Academic
Association for Organizational Science as an NPO (non-profit organization) in March,
2005. Consequently, the Association has to change over from a group of voluntary
people to a public corporate body, which takes responsibility for contributing to humansociety.
(Masaya MIYAZAKI, Nagoya University)

71

JAPAN ASSOCIATION FOR PLANNING ADMINISTRATION

1. General Description
This association, which was established in 1977 as a trans-disciplinary forum
consisting of academic researchers, government planning experts and corporate
planners, aims at development of knowledge systems of planning science based oninterchange of observations and outcomes of studies related to progress in planning,
implementation, and assessment and theory of planning as well as insights into naturaland social fundamentals. Planning administration covers not only aspects in the public
sector, but also managerial planning in the private sector, involving international
coordination, while discussing the fusion of both sectors with attention to increased
managerial efficiency beyond the conventional dichotomous concept. Nowadays, theconcept of the public that originally meant “people” is deeply recognized in the rising
civil society shared through autonomous social networks. On the occasion of organizing
this Association, it was stated that planning originated in thought and science is to beachieved through management based on organization and technologies. People who
were interested in tackling inconsistencies existing between real planning andadministration established the Association in order to integrate planning andadministration through wide participation and integration of separated sciences.
It cannot be effective without ideal and science. In addition, planning ischaracterized by realization and participation through diversified interest groups. The
more planning environment increases in complexity, constraints decrease in flexibility
and consensus formation increases in difficulty, the more a fundamental philosophy or
long-term vision based on a view of the changing world is required. A synthetic value
judgment is the essential core of planning management. Information systems may
greatly influence decision-making, policy assessment systems and accountability. They
will play an essential part in hard and soft social infrastructure to be established andrefined through holistic knowledge stock formation. Furthermore, new types ofcontemporary socio-economic studies are developing with focus on social capital
involving the sound balances between efficiency and equity based on freedom as thebasis of social governance toward creatively shared discipline, values, understanding ortrust brought up through the social network.
It is natural that policy management or planning management should be based on
fact-finding as an observation science, because it aims at managing the realsocio-economy. Observation science has made progress not only from quantitative
studies to theoretical studies but also from prescriptive analyses to assessment science72

or decision-making science. Corresponding to holistically intensified objectives,
development of wide-ranging planning means has to be promoted. Implementation
science has developed organized planning, resource allocation and assessment involving
institutional systems or social services infrastructure. In addition, the development ofpolicy science or policy management is to be considered as progress in the ecologicalsoundness of human society.
The Association was started with about 300 members at the beginning, but has
expanded to involve over 1200 at present. A General Meeting, Board of Directors,
Standing Executive Committee and Advisory Board manage the Association. The
present President is Kazuyoshi KUROKAWA, Professor, Hosei University, nominated in
2005, succeeding Takeshi HIROMATSU (University of Tokyo). The first president was
Ichiro NAKAYAMA, the second Hiromi ARISAWA, the third Saburo OKITA, the fourth
Hiroshi KATO, the fifth Takashi FUJII and the sixth Yoshinobu KUMATA.
The Association consists of eight regional branches. Each branch carries out
individual studies based on its respective perspective. The Association holds an annual
conference in cooperation with each regional branch in turn. The Science Committee
consists of an Editorial and Publication Committee, which is responsible for editing thequarterly organ Planning Administration and publication of the Planning Administration
Study Series and a Review Committee for Research Papers. The Association issues theNewsletter for internal information on the Association’s ongoing activities. There are
five study committees working inside the Association.
Three categories of awards are established according to the code to provide theirrespective selecting process. Academic awards consist of three types: the Award for an
Outstanding Research Paper, the Award for Promotion and the Award for a Superior
Article are selected by the Association’s Award Review Committee. In 1999, an Award
for Contribution to the Association was established. In addition, an Award for Planningto be given to effectively outstanding planning that is widely recommended and selectedbeyond the constituents of the Association was established in 1995. This award isselected by the Judging Committee, which includes eminent leaders independent fromthe Association’s membership.
2. Annual Conference
The annual Conference is oriented to the major conference theme, which continues
for three years. The annual conference is organized centering on the responsibility ofeach Regional Branch in charge. The major conference theme continuous for 2002-2004
was Planning Administration in the 21st Century.
The 24th annual conference was held at Sapporo University on September 22-23,73

2001 on the theme of “The Role of the Public in the 21st Century and the Planning
Administration” under the Conference Chairman, Yoshinobu KOBAYASHI, Professor,
Sapporo University. Two keynote addresses were given on “For the 21st Century,” by
Norihito TAMBO, President, University of Air and on “A New Paradigm of Policy
Science” by Yoshinobu KUMATA, President, JAPA. Two symposiums were organized on“Inhabitants Participation in Policy Formation” and “The Role of the Public in Public
Administration”. Research presentations were arranged into 18 sessions: Policy
Assessment 1-4; Environmental Policy 1-2: Welfare Policy 1-2; Residents’Participation: Traffic Policy; NPO; Local Policy; Employment Policy; IT Society;Industrial Development; Local Finance; Development/Economic Policy. Fiveworkshops were organized: River Basin Summit; Care Insurance Practice; Environment
NPO; Agriculture/Forestry Policy; Administration, Policy and Program Evaluation.
The 25th annual conference was held at Tsukuba International Conference Center on
September 21-22, 2002 on the theme of Establishment of a Japan-type Partnership and
New Planning Administration, under Conference Chairman, Noboru NISHIFUJI,
President, Japan Research Institute. Two keynote addresses were given on “Planning
Administration and Policy Evaluation” by Takashi HIROMATSU, President, JAPA and on“The Problem on Environmental Preservation of Lakes” by Ryuichi SUDO, Visiting
Professor, Tohoku Institute of Technology. Two symposiums were organized on“Residents’ Participation in Basin Management” and “Evaluation of Municipal Care
Insurance Practices and Effective and Efficient Project Panning Methodology”. Elevensessions for research presentations were arranged: Local Development andConsolidation of Social Overhead Capital; Policy Decision Making; Area Management;
Policy Evaluation of Water Resources Management; Administration Evaluation; Aged
People and Care Insurance; NPO and Decreased Children; Local Policy; Administration
with IT; Citizens’ Participation in Administration; Economic Policy Analysis. Fourworkshops were organized: Sustainable Economic development consistent withEnvironmental Conservation; Compact Cities for Sustainable Development;
Perspectives on Development of Environmental and Economic Integrated Accounting”;
Project and Program Management for Enterprise Innovation in Japan.
The 26th annual conference was held at Tohoku University on September 20-21,
2003, on the theme of Various Partnerships and Planning Administration Based on
Communities under Conference Chairman Osamu KONOIKE, Professor, Tohoku
University. Two keynote addresses were given on “A Renewal of Japan which Starts in
Decentralization: The Conversion from a High-cost Society” by Shiro ASANO and on“Building Communities in the Midst of Decentralization in an Ageing Society” by
Naohiko JINNO, Professor, University of Tokyo. Two symposiums were organized on74

“Building a Well-to-Do Living Environment in the Ageing Society” and on “Safety andFunctions of Food – Planning and Ethics Required for Food Administration”. A
mini-symposium was added on “Consensus Building for Planning”. Fourteen sessions
were arranged for research presentations: Public Works; Local Development; Waste
Disposal; Medical Care and Welfare; Collaboration between Public and Private Sectors;
Local Policy; Natural Environment; Ageing Population; Partnership; Information;
Policy Evaluation; Public and Environment; Public and Monetary Finance; NPO. Eightworkshops were composed on: Care Insurance Program Planning; Excursion and Urban
Core; Inter-relational linkages and Integration in Micro/Mezzo/Macro Environmental
Accounting; Sustainable Compact Cities; Analyses of Municipal Medical Treatment
Expenditures Based on Receipt Information.
The 27th annual conference was held at Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University
on September 18-19, 2004, on the theme of New Developments in Planning
Administration: Partnership with Asia, under Conference Chairman Hiroshi KATO,
President, Chiba University of Commerce. The keynote address was given on “The New
Leaders of Future: The Information Infrastructure in Asia” by Jun MURAI, Professor,
Keio University. Three symposiums were organized on: “Issues of Logistics in Asia”;“Strategies and Policies to Facilitate Compact Cities”; “Consensus Building for Urban
Environment”. Twelve sessions for research presentations were arranged on: Traffic;
Urban Policy; NPO/Partnership; Risk Communication; Policy Evaluation/Proposal;
Asia; Residents’ Participation; Administration Management; Environment; Efficient
Public Management; Risk and Society. Four workshops were provided on:
Comprehensive Environmental Management Policy; Verification of Care Insurance
System and Considerations toward its Fundamental Reform; Partnership in Municipal
and Private Think Tanks; Two-Storied Wide-Area Urban Partnerships and Local
Promotion: Polycentricity.
The 28th annual conference was held at Nagoya Sangyo University and Expo Hall
on September 9-11, 2005, on the theme of Planning Administration in the Era ofEnvironmental Symbiosis, under Conference Chairman Tatsuo ITO, President, Nagoya
Sangyo University. Takeshi HIROMATSU, Professor, University of Tokyo gave acommemorative conference lecture on “Reformation of the Government Statistical
System”. Mari CHRISTINE, Producer, 2005 Expo, made a keynote address on “Livingwith Woods and Expo for Love and Earth”. A symposium was organized on “Livingwith Woods and Living Making Woods – Renaissance of Woods and Satoyama in
Decreasing Population” Five workshops were organized on: “Possibility for ITS Type
Speed Control of Automobiles in Japan”; “Response to Disasters through Social
Networks”; Water Resources Management in the Era of Environmental Symbiosis―

75

Toward Synergy from Spillover”; “Interaction Activities for Environment Symbiosis in
Town Building”; “Risk Communication through Building a New Public Concept”.
Presentations of 66 papers were made through 14 sessions: Environmental Policy 1-3;
Environmental Management; Industrial Promotion; Town Building; Urban/Area
Development 1-3; Planning Administration General 1-2; Environmental Symbiosis
Oriented City Vision; Participation/Partnership.
3. Publications
It is one of the core activities of the Association to ensure the periodical issue of thequarterly organ Public Administration, for which the Editorial and Publication
Committee was chaired by Shuntaro SHISHIDO for 1999-2004. In 2005 the Committee
Chairman changed to Toshinori NEMOTO, Hitotsubashi University. Each issue ofPlanning Administration is edited according to a specific theme and is generallycomposed within a total of 120 pages of an editorial, articles centering on the issue
theme, refereed papers, current trends in university education for policy and planning
management, introduction of cases of local and regional planning, book reviews,
donated books, a forum for members to present their interests or opinions, andsecretariat information. Refereed research papers are reviewed and examined by thePaper Review Committee chaired by Yujiro OHIWA, Tokyo International University, whotook over from Hirohito NIGASE, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology,
in 2005.
Vol. 24, No. 1, March 2001, with the theme of Regional Systems in the 21st Century
and the Planning Administration, editorialized by Kenji YASUO, Chairman of Chugoku
Branch, is a special issue for the 23rd annual conference, summarizing the keynote
addresses, panels and papers presented as well as award winners’ remarks.
Vol. 24, No. 2, June 2001, on the theme of Planning Administration for the 21stCentury – Reorganization of Government Ministries, editorialized by Hiroshi KATO,
President, Chiba University of Commerce, on “Just What is This Political Leadership?”,
contains: Yoshihiro KOBAYASHI (Sapporo University), “Comprehensive Policy Making
and Administrative Organization ― Adjustment or Integration”; Yukihisa KIHO (Chuo
University), “Open Administration ― A New Style of Japanese Administration”;
Kazuyoshi KUROKAWA, (Hosei University), “Central Government Reforms,
Decentralization, Budget Deficits Crisis, New Public Management”; Hideaki
SHIROYAMA (University of Tokyo), “Institutional Support for Administrative Reform and
Implementation Issues― Impact of the Hashimoto Administrative Reform and Future
Agendas”; Sukehiro HOSONO (Chuo University), “Policy Analysis of the Administrative
Restructuring in Japan―A Political Arithmetic of Mergers”.

76Vol. 24, No. 3, September 2001, with a theme of Planning Administration for the
21 Century― Electronic Government is editorialized by Yasuo MATSUYUKI (ToyoUniversity) on “The New Planning Administration by Formation of Electronic
Government,” followed by: Yoji TANIGUCHI, (Chuo University), “Is E-government
Failure Inevitable?”; Nobumitsu TAKIGAMI, (Chiba University of Commerce),“Administrative Reform by Electronic Government”; Shuhei KISHIMOTO, (Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry), “IT Strategy of Japan and Its Relations with e-ASIA”;
Seitaro FUJITA, (Gifu Prefectural Government), “Objects for Gifu IT Strategies”; Satomi
HIROKAWA, (Yokosuka City), “Approaches to e-local Government”. In addition, Haruki
NIWA, (Osaka Gakuin University), “A Detailed Analysis on Some Special
Characteristics of Lucas’s ASL/LAS under Generalized Conditions: A Synthetic
Understanding of Both Lucasian and Keynesian Systems” is included as a special
article.
Vol. 24, No. 4, December 2001 with a focus on Planning Administration for the 21stst

Century – The Public and Private in Planning Administration is editorialized by Takashi
FUJII (IFSSO-ISSC) followed by Takatoshi IMADA, (Tokyo Institute of Technology),“New Dimensions of Publicness Concept: beyond the Dualism of Private/Public”;
Yukimasa NAGAYASU, (Reitaku University), “Philosophy of the Public, Common andPrivate in Communitarianism”; Hideki KATO, (Japan Initiative), “Who Carries Public
Affairs? ―From State Monopoly to People’s Share”; Keishi SAEKI, (Kyoto University),“The Transformation from the Market Principle Toward the New Public Planning”;
Takashi ONISHI, (University of Tokyo), “Physical Planning in Transition and Public
Interests in Districts”.
Vol. 25, No. 1 is a special issue of the 24th annual conference with the theme of The
Role of the Public in the 21st Century and Planning Administration editorialized by
Yoshihiro KOBAYASHI (Sapporo University)
Vol. 25, No. 2, June 2002, with the theme of Employment and Social Security is
editorialized with “Public Pensions at a Crosswords” by Toshinosuke KASHIWAZAKI(Waseda University), which is followed by: Naomi MARUO, (Life Design Institute),“Employment and Social Security: Mutual Relationship between Employment,
Economic Growth and Social Security in Japan”; Sei KURIBAYASHI, (Chuo University),“Job Strategies and Policies in an Era of High Unemployment”; Tomoko FURUGORI,(Chuo University), “An Increase in Conventional Employment and Issues on the Social
Security System”.
Vol. 25, No. 3, September 2002 with the theme of New Dimensions of the Security
Agenda is editorialized by Mikoto USUI (Professor Emeritus, University of Tsukuba)
followed by: Satoshi MORIMOTO, (Takushoku University), “Japan’s Security Strategy in77the Post-Cold War Period”; Akira KINOSHITA, (Tohoku Bunka Gakuen University),“Transformation of the Security Concept”; Yasuhide YAMANOUCHI, (International
University of Japan), “Information and Telecommunication Technology and Security”;
LAU Sim Yee, (Reitaku University)/Yoshinobu ONISHI, (The Sasakawa Peace
Foundation), “The New Security and Nongovernmental Organizations”.
Vol. 25, No. 4, December 2002, with the theme of University Reform and Planning
Administration, is editorialized by Hiroshi KATO (Chiba University of Commerce),
which is followed by: Takashi FUJII, (Honorary President of IFSSO), “Quo Vadis
Human Sovereignty on Research and Education”; Masakazu OKUBO (Osaka University),“The Orientation of University Reform ―A Rough Sketch from a Viewpoint ofCivilization”; Kazuyoshi KUROKAWA, (Hosei University), “Universities in the New
Century”; Akihiro SAWA, (Research Institute for Economy, Trade and Industry), “TheBlind Spots of University Reform Implemented by Transforming Universities into
IAIs”; Morikazu USHIOGI, (Musashino Women’s University), “Present Situation of
University Reform”; Masakazu YANO, (Tokyo Institute of Technology), “University
Governance Forced on the Relation between Academic Ideas and Financing”.
Vol. 26, No. 1, March 2003, a special issue for the 25th annual conference with thetheme of Establishment of a Japan-type Partnership and New Planning Administration is
editorialized by Noboru NISHIFUJI (President, Japan Research Institute).
Vol. 26, No. 2, June 2003 with the theme of Planning Administration for Urban
Communities is editorialized by Masakazu OKUBO (Professor Emeritus, Osaka
University) on “On the Approach to the Urban Community,” which is followed by:
Sukehiro HOSONO, (Chuo University), “A Sketch of a Smart Community in the Open
Nexus”; Akira KINOSHITA, (Tohoku Bunka Gakuen University), “Potentiality of e-urban
Communities”；Takashi ONISHI, (University of Tokyo), “Further Development of NPOs
through the ‘Realization of Ideas’”；Shinobu SAKURAI, (Mie University), “Future HealthCare Strategies and Community ―Towards Healthy Communities”
Vol. 26, No. 3, September 2003, given the theme of Health Care and Planning
Administration, with introductory remarks on “Toward Full Disclosure of Medical
Information for a Fully Citizen-supported Reform of the Japanese Medical System” isfollowed by: Seiya YAMAGUCHI, (University of Tsukuba), “International Aspects of theJapanese Medical Care System”; Naomi MARUO (Shobi University), “Welfare Mix in
Health Insurance Reform: Optimum Allocation of Planning, Market and Informal
Systems”; Makoto MIYAJI, (Nagoya City University), “Town Planning Centered on
Community-Based Medicine”; Kentaro MAKI (Shin Nihon & Co.), “Financing Methods
Used by Health Care Providers”. In addition, a special contributory article is included:
Akitoshi EDAGAWA, (Nagoya University), “Study of Cooperation between Academic and78

Industrial Sectors in View of the Scheduled Transformation of National Universities
into Independent Administrative Institutes”.
Vol. 26, No. 4, December 2003, with the theme of Integrated Information Society―
Trans-Disciplinary Challenge, is editorialized by Shumpei KUMON (Center for Global
Communication, International University) on “Information Society Headed for a
Breakthrough”, which is followed by: Shigeo TSUJII, (Chuo University), “Information
Security ― Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Science”; Koichiro HAYASHI, (Keio
University), “Entitlement to Intellectual Property: Efficiency and Equity”; Akira
KINOSHITA, (Tohoku Bunka Gakuen University), “Possibility and Risk inTrans-Disciplinary Conversion of Technologies and Sciences ― Nanotechnology,
Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science”; Nobuo IKEDA,(Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry IAA), “The Unbundling Policy of
Network Elements: Japan’s Experience” Keiichiro ISHIBASHI, (International Universityof Japan), “The Need for Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Regional
Telecommunications Infrastructure Deployment Policy”.
Vol. 27, No. 1, March 2004 is a special issue for the 26th annual conference with thetheme of Various Partnerships and Planning Administration Based on Communities,
which begins with introductory remarks by Osamu KAMOIKE (Tohoku University).
Vol. 27, No. 2, June 2004, with the theme of Intergenerational and Intragenerational
Employment ― Equity and Efficiency is editorialized by Naomi MARUO (Shobi
University), which is followed by: Yoshio ISHIMIZU, (Ministry of Health, Labor andWelfare), “Japanese Society and Employment Policy in the Transformation ―A View
point of Collaboration between Generations”; Masatoshi YORIMITSU, (Hitotsubashi
University), “International Migration and the Structure of Intra- and Inter-Generational
Employment”; Tomoko FURUGORI, (Chuo University), “Typical and Atypical Workers:
Balancing Economic Efficiency and Equity”; Sei KURIBAYASHI, (Chuo University),“Changes in Employment and Policies in Terms of Age”; Kouhei WADA, (Chuo
University), “Below- Replacement Fertility and the Employment of Young Labor”.
Vol. 27, No. 3, September 2004, September 2004, with the theme of Risk Society
and Planning Administration, editorialized by Yoshinobu KUMATA (Science Council ofJapan) on “Empowering Risk Communication in Public Choice of Informed Consent”,
is followed by: Takau YONEYAMA, (Hitotsubashi University), “Risk Management inPlanning Administration”; Takehiko MURAYAMA, (Waseda University), “What to do for
Better Communication on Environmental Risk: a Consideration Based on Experiments
in Saitama with PRTR System”; Akira KINOSHITA, (Tohoku Bunka Gakuen University),“New Public Sphere for Risk Communication”; Toshizumi OHTA, (University ofElectro-Communications), “Risk Communication and Information Disclosure: a Trust79Game Model and an Information Channel Effect Model”; Saburo IKEDA, (University ofTsukuba), “Risk Society and Planning Approach toward Societal Governance on
Technological and Environmental Risks”.
Vol. 27, No. 4, December 2004, with the theme of Local Risk Management,
editorialized by Takeshi HIROMATSU (University of Tokyo) with “On Risk” is followed
by: Nobuo SUGIURA, (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport), “Synthetic
Capability for Natural Disaster Prevention around Urban Areas”; Hisaki GOTO, (Seitoku
University), “e-Local Government and Its Risk Management”; Seiya YAMAGUCHI,(University of Tsukuba), “Risk Analysis and Management of Medical Treatment inJapan”.
Vol. 28, No. 1, March 2005, with the theme of New Development in Planning
Administration: Partnership with Asia, is a special issue for the 27th annual conference,
introduced by Hiroshi KATO (Predsident, Chiba University of Commerce).
Vol. 28, No. 2, June 2005, with the theme of International Partnership in Asia,
editorialized by Toshio WATANABE (President, Takushoku University) with “On the East
Asian Community” includes: Fumiaki INAGAKI, (Keio Research Institute at SFC), “TheShanghai Cooperative Organization and Transformation of Asia”; Eiji OGAWA,(Hitotsubashi University), Kentaro KAWASAKI, (Toyo University), “International
Coordination of Currency Policies in East Asia”; Yoshiki KURATA, (Hitotsubashi
University), “International Cooperation and Labor Migration in East Asia: A new trend
in the bilateral negotiation between the Philippines and Japan”.
Vol. 28, No. 3, September 2005, with the theme of Wisdom for Coexistence with
Nature, editorialized by Takamitsu SAWA (Kyoto University) with “The 21st Century is
the Century of the Environment” includes: Kazuo MATSUSHITA (Kyoto University),“Thirty-five Years of Environmental Policy in Japan: Past and Present”; Yoshinobu
KUMATA (Chiba University of Commerce), “The Academic Mission for Scientific Workson Planning Administration to Create Sustainable Science for the Future”; Toshio YASUI(Advisor, Japan Association for the 2005 Exposition), “The 2005 World Exposition(Expo 2005 AICHI, JAPAN) and Its Goals”.
4. Research Papers
Research papers are examined through a review and refinement process by pluralreferees nominated by the Research Paper Review Committee chaired by Yujiro OHIWA(Tokyo International University), who replaced Hirohito NIGASE (Tokyo University ofMarine Science and Technology) in 2005.
Vol. 24, No. 1, 2001: Shigeru FUJIOKA, (Tokyo Metropolitan Government), Kiyoko
HAGIHARA, (Tokyo Metropolitan University), “A Study on Applying Water Charges to80

Upstream and the Downstream Problem”; Sang-Chul PARK, Hirohito KUSE, Tetsuro
HYODO and Tsukasa MICHIYOSHI, (Tokyo University of Mercantile Marine), “A Study on
Planning Method for Parking Spaces Based on the Driver Choice Model of Goods
Vehicles on CBD”. Vol. 24, No. 2, 2001: Katsumi KOTANI and Toru FURUICHI,(Hokkaido University), Tomohiko MARUO, (Pacific Consultants), “Systems Study on
Environmental Management System of Japanese Landfill Sites”. Vol. 24, No. 3, 2001:
Masashi NAKANO, (Niigata Prefectural Government), “The New Model Named “TheModel of an Observation Balloon” for Analyzing Decision-Making Process of Public
Policy”. Vol. 24, No. 4: Hiroshi OTANI, Akiko KONDO, Yoshinobu HIROSE and Keiichi
TAKAHASHI, (University of Tokushima), “Evaluation of Merger of Local Governments
Based on the Reasonable Scale of Primary Schools”; Naoko MATSUMOTO, (National
Institute for Environmental Studies), “Policy-Making Factors of Decision-Making
Processes of Air Quality Standards: A Comparative Analysis between Japan and theUnited States”; Boo-Kui LEE and In Sung SONG, (Chonnam National University, Korea),“A Study on a Policy Mix for Urban Land Supply Through Revising the Green Belt
System of Korea”; Miki YASUI, (Tokyo Institute for Municipal Research), Takashi
ONISHI, (University of Tokyo), “Analysis of “Payment with Benefit” in Tax Increment
Financing and its Appropriateness ― Review of the Case in the State of Illinois”.
Vol. 25, No. 1, 2002: Masaru MASUDA, (Urban Planning Center), “Problems andSolutions in Implementing a City Master Plan−Based on an Investigation Case in
Manazuru-Machi, Kanagawa Prefecture”; Kenichi YUGE, (Chiba Prefectural
Government), Tatsuro SAKANO, (Tokyo Institute of Technology), “An Appraisal of
Performance Evaluation Systems in Prefectural Governments”. Vol. 25, No. 2, 2002:
Shinobu KITANI, (Tohoku University), “A Justification of Re-Distribution of Economic
Resources on Modern Egalitarian Theories and a Proposal for a Framework to Evaluate
Practical Distribution Policy”; Tatsuro SAKANO and Shino SAWAOKA, (Tokyo Institute ofTechnology), “Assessing Interactive Effects of Family and Housing Pattern on Selective
Behaviors of Aged People”; Mitsutsugu HAMAMOTO, (Dokkyo University),“Policymaking Process of the Sulfur Dioxide Allowance Trading Program in the UnitedStates”; Norio YOSHIJIMA, Takashi ONISHI and Tetsuo KIDOKORO, (University of Tokyo),“The Impact of Administrative and Social Changes in Thailand on the Establishing
Process of a Land Use Planning System”. Vol. 25, No. 3: Yoshiki KAGO and Hideoki
TAKATSUJI, (Reitaku University), “The Land Price Estimation Technique by Delaunay
Triangle Interpolation”; Masayuki NAKAGAWA, (Osaka University), “How Do We Find
Discrimination? : Measuring Discrimination with Audit Study”; Nobuaki TAKAHAMA,(Ichikawa City Office), “A Study of Changes in Local Allocation Tax among Cities andFinancial Adjustment Function since 1990”. Vol. 25, No. 4: Yongguan ZHOU, Yoji

81

KAWAKAMI and Yoshiaki HONDA, (Fukui University), “Research on Role Assignment ofTourism Development in China ― Huangshan as an Example”; Osamu NAKAMURA,(International University of Japan), “Reform of Public Finance and Administration in
Japan and Its Impacts on the Regional Economics: The Case of Hokkaido - Modelingand Scenario Forecasts for the Regional Economy”
Vol. 26, No. 1, 2003: Kazuyasu KAWASAKI, (Tokai University), “The Factor Analysis
and Forecasting of the Construction to the Housing Ownership”; Tatsuyoshi INABA,(Osaka University of Commerce), Hiroyuki HAGOROMO, (University of International
Studies), “Optimum Size and Consolidation of Municipalities”. Vol. 26, No. 2: Yumi
KATO, Masashi KASUYA, Rhe-Heon JEONG, Yuichiro SAKAKIBARA and Yasuyoshi SEKITA,(Tohoku University), Akira INUKAI, (Keio University), “Designing and Verification of
the Communication Research in Evaluating Policies and Programs”; Sumio SUZUKI,(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport), “A Study on the Cost Benefit Analysis
over Several Generations and Countries ― A Case of the Port of Colombo”; Terukazu
KUMAZAWA, (Tokyo Institute of Technology), Hidehiko KANEGAE, (Ritsumeikan
University), “Basic Study on Description of a Vicinal Environmental Planning Processwith Genetic Algorithms”. Vol. 26, No. 3:Muneharu KOKURA, (Urban Research Center,
Organization for Promoting Urban Development), “A Study of Bicycle-Use Promotion
Policy by means of the Encouragement of Bicycle Commuting”; Katsuki TAKAO,(Ritsumeikan University), Urban Poverty and the Environment; A Case of Kampung
Upgrading”. Vol. 26, No. 4:Kenichi SASAKI, (Osaka University), “The Implication for
the Primary Balance Applied to Local Government”.
Vol. 27, No. 1, 2004: Yasuhiro YAMASHITA, (Tokyo Metropolitan Park Association),
Yasunori OTSUBO, and Hiroyuki FUJII, (Tokyo Metropolitan Government), Fumihiro
ABE, (Nishitokyo City), “Study on the Implementation of Public Involvement on Radial
Road No. 36”. Vol. 27, No. 2: Tatsuro SAKANO, (Tokyo Institute of Technology), Noriko
NAGATA, “A Protocol Study on Cognitive Difference between the Experts and the
Citizens Concerning a Comprehensive Plan”; Tadakatsu NAKAMURA, (Meikai
University), “An Empirical Analysis on Effect of Policies for Reducing Household
Waste”; Kimihiro HINO, (NPO Shotengai and Machizukuri Lab.), Delivery Services
Operated by Commercial Unions in Cooperation with Local Residents”. Vol.27,
No.3:Tatsuya HATA, Tetsuo KIDOKORO and Takashi ONISHI, (University of Tokyo), “A
Comparison Study on Community Participation and a Sense of Belonging to Human
Settlement Development for Community Building between Young and Adult People inSlum and Squatter Settlements in Thailand”; Toru SATO, (Takasaki City University of
Economics), Toshiyuki SUZUKI, (Toyonaka Municipal Government), Toshimasa OZAKI,(Nagoya Gakuin University), “Conversion from ‘All Round Even Policy’ to ‘Selective82

Policy’ ― the Possibility of Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process to the Decision
Making Process in Setting Priorities of Administrative Activities at Local Government ”.
Vol. 27, No. 4: Takashi HATTORI, (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry), “A Studyon the Determination of a Policy Area ― The Green Employment Project and the
Local Employment Urgent Creation Special Grant System”; Toshiyuki YAMANAKA,(The Japan Research Institute, Ltd.), “Suggestion for Effective Introduction ofManagement by Objectives in Japan’s Local Government ― Actual Analysis Based on
Survey of P Municipal Office”.
Vol. 28, No. 1, 2005: Shigeru SHIMIZU, (City Vitalization Institute Co. Ltd.), Yoji
TAKAHASHI and Sideney SCHREINER, (Tokyo University of Marine Science andTechnology), “A Study on Priority Planning for Highway Construction from the Pointof View of Travel Time, Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emission”; Makoto
TSUKAI, (Ritsumeikan University), Makoto OKUMURA, (Hiroshima University),“Efficiency of Administrative Expenditure Considering Geographical Feature”.
Vol. 28, No. 2: Haengjo KIM and Shunichi MAEKAWA, (Meikai University), “TheAnalysis of the Effect of the Property Tax of Korea and Other Main Countries”;
Chigako YAMAMOTO, Kunihiro KISHI and Keiichi SATO, (Hokkaido University),
Fumihiro HARA, (Hokkaido Development Engineering Center), “Application of QFD to
Residents’ Evaluation of Public Services”. Vol. 28, No. 3: Chigako
YAMAMOTO/Kunihiro NISHI (Hokkaido University), Fumihiro HARA (Hokkaido
Development Engineering Center and Keiichi SATO (Hokkaido University), “Outcome
Indicators of Snow Removal for Business Promotion Policy”.
5. Study Committees
There are five study groups organized at present in the Association: the Policy
Evaluation Study Group, coordinated by Yoshinobu KUMATA (Chiba University ofCommerce); the Study Group on Evaluation Systems for Planning Administration,
coordinated by Tatsuro SAKANO (Tokyo Institute of Technology); the Study Group on
Consensus Building Process, coordinated by Sachihiko HARASHINA (Tokyo Institute ofTechnology); the Study Group on Evaluation of the Operation of Care Insurance
Systems, coordinated by Keizo SEKITA (Tohoku University); and the Study Group on the
Sustainable City with a Risk Communication System, coordinated by Akira KINOSHITA(Chiba University of Commerce).
6. Awards
The Association has established three categories of awards :(1) Award for aDistinguished Contribution (2) Awards for Academic Achievements (3) Award for83

Distinguished Planning. Awards for Academic Achievements are further divided into (a)Award for an Outstanding Research Paper (b) Award for Promotion (c) Award for a
Superior Article. The Award for Distinguished Contribution is nominated by theStanding Executive Committee. The Academic Review Committee, based on judging
subcommittees, selects the Awards for Academic Achievements. An independentjudging committee including third-party well-informed experts selects the Award forDistinguished Planning.
Awards for an Outstanding Paper were given to Makoto YAMAGUCHI (Toyohashi
University of Science and Technology)/Yasuo KOIE (Nagaoka Junior College) in 2002,
Shinobu KITANI (Tohoku University) in 2003, Masayuki NAKAGAWA (Osaka University)
in 2003, Tatsuro SAKANO (Tokyo Institute of Technology) in 2004 and Hidehiko
KANAGAE (Ritsumeikan University)/Kiichi KUMAZAWA (Tokyo Institute of Technology)
in 2005.
Awards for Promotion were given to: Kazuyasu KAWASAKI (Tokai University) in
2001, Kayoko YAMAMOTO (Lake Biwa Research Institute) in 2001, Shigeru FUJIOKA(Tokyo Metropolitan Government) in 2002, Miki YASUI (Tokyo Institute for Municipal
Research) in 2002, Naoko MATSUMOTO (National Institute for Environmental Studies) in
2003, Kenichi YUGE (Chiba Prefectural Government) in 2004, Nobuaki TAKAHAMA(Ichikawa City Office) in 2004, Kenichi SASAKI (Osaka University of Commerce) in
2005, and Tadakatsu NAKAMURA (Meikai University) in 2005.
Awards for Superior Articles were given to: Naomi MARUO (Nihon University) in
2001, Keishi SAEKI (Kyoto University) in 2002, Sukehiro HOSONO (Chuo University) in
2002, Masakazu OKUBO (Professor Emeritus, Osaka University) in 2003, Masakazu
YANO (Tokyo Institute of Technology) in 2004, Nobuo IKEDA (Research Institute of
Economy, Trade and Industry) in 2004, and Saburo IKEDA (University of Tsukuba) in
2005.
Awards for Distinguished Planning were given to: Environmental ISO Community
Group, Iida City for “Development of Minami-Shinshu IIMUSU 21 Working Together
in the Community” in 2001, Yanagitani Municipal Public Hall for “Local Developmentwith Living and Impressive Welfare” in 2002, Yokohama City and other collaborating
entities for “Restoration of Yokohama Red Brick Warehouse” in 2003 andShimokawa-Cho Foundation for Furusato Promotion for “Promotion Program for
Integrated Woods Clusters in line with Forest Management for Sustainable Community
Building” in 2005.
(Akira KINOSHITA, Chiba University of Commerce)

84THE SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL POLICYThe Preventive Concept in Japanese Welfare
A Brief Introduction on Social Policy and Ideology
Introduction
Policy debates on reforming the legislation of long-term care for elderly people
have illuminated the importance of the concept of prevention. The new legislation of2005 puts those elderly clients who need a conventional rank of care services into thearea of receiving preventive service provision, and enhances self-controlled promotionof preventive practices. Though the substantial contents of the so-called preventive
provision is limited in the legislative service list and there is certain obscurity on theway to link such preventive service items with a managerial system of care as a process,it is still an incidental move in the Japanese care policy to open the area of a preventive
approach to promoting human capability in long-term care for the elderly. The purposeof this paper is to trace the preventive notion and to clarify the position of thepreventive concept as an ideological tool, aiming at interpreting Japanese social policy
studies by interfacing with Euro-American arguments.
It is a well-accepted fact that the cost to be incurred by preventive methods would
likely be of a lower degree if compared with the cost to be incurred in the curing
process. Moreover, in a situation where available resources in terms of material and man
power resources are limited in quantity, an efficient distributional practice is highly
required, and the concept of preventive care in this situation is hoped to be able to assist
in identifying an effectively early, comprehensive and reflexive intervention methods
that can lead to a slow-down in consumption of limited resources. Prevention, as argued
by L’ABATE (1990), consists of any approach, procedure, or method designed to improve
interpersonal competence and functioning of individuals, and the objectives of
prevention are to minimize harm to the individual and the community through the
improving and sustaining of certain functioning such as economic productivity
necessary for the living of the individual (JAHIEL, 1992). Prevention is also a processthat comprises a continuum of interventions (L’ABATE, 1990). In this context ofargument, the intended effort to minimize harm to the community should be worked out
through the improvement of interpersonal competence rather than merely of
individuals’.
The above relation signifies the need for a systematic, comprehensive and reflexive
mode of action in order to ensure the continuity of preventive approach implementation.
This effort must be founded on the acquirement of solidarity through the minimization85

of individual and community harm that in return will create the environment for the
possible implementation of the above systematic, comprehensive, reflexive andreciprocal mode of action. Though currently it seems quite fashionable to argue about topreventive concept of welfare in Japan, as a matter of fact, consideration towards theelements of prevention has been embedded in its system all along, even from its
beginning. In this paper, we trace the above comprehensive, reflexive and reciprocal
elements of actions in the formation of welfare policy, to highlight the trend ofargument that founded the general understanding towards the characteristics of theseelements, and to look into the extent of influence that they currently display against the
advocated practice of ‘preventive care’ in Japan through our brief literature review.
The Idea of Preventive Care in Japan
Among enabling factors that are believed to be able to support the possible
pursuance of a preventive approach in welfare areas, the following five factors can be
identified: service delivery system restructuring (Meredith DAVIES, 1995; GLASBY and
LITTLECHILD, 2004), social workers’ competency profile reforming (OTTO and FLÖSSER,
1992; GOULD and BALDWIN, 2004), information sharing (AUSTIN, 2004; OGASAWARA,
2005), community and social network reorganizing (SEDEN and REYNOLD, 2003;
GLASBY and LITTLECHILD, 2004; http://www.mkweb.co.uk), and finally – maybe themost challenging to Japan’s current situation – the need for an understanding towards
the concept of contributive obligation (reciprocity) as a social duty in the mutual effort
to implement such social action (DRÈZE and SEN, 1989; ROCHE, 1992; WHITE, 2003).
The organizational reformation of institutions both internally and externally aiming
to remove bureaucratic rigidity is a necessary factor to allow a higher capacity ofprofessional functioning in the care profession. It is through this shift of competency
profile that social workers are expected to reform their framework of professionality
from primarily interventive and controlling activities to activities directed towards
assistance, support, activation and prevention. The possibility of information sharing
will further enhance the professionality of social workers by allowing the formation ofcare provisioning teams with a resilient teamwork capacity that is equipped with ashared sense of ideology and responsibility. However, sharing just between theprofessionals has proved to be insufficient since effective intervention with preventive
orientation requires accurate information and mutual commitment from individuals andtheir community. This is where professionals have to put up an additional effort to drive
the community into a participative mode and assist them by building their confidence
that will later on assure the development of their capacity to continuously engage,
participate and contribute towards the implementation of preventive measures for their86

own society. And above all, the possible actualization of this idea will largely depend on
the understanding of the importance of such efforts by individuals and the acceptance ofparticipation in it as a duty to oneself and a duty that community members owe to eachother. The translation of this wisdom into a practice can only stand on the positive
response from the majority of individuals who sustain the community.
As observable from the above explanation, the simplistic notion of ‘earlier’intervention is no longer placed as the dominating and main defining concept of‘preventive strategy’ as it is currently understood in contemporary social work andsocial policy issues. As argued by OTTO and FLÖSSER (1992), the argument hasdeveloped into a more complex thinking that aims to implement holistic,
lifeworld-related action strategies with further additional consideration towards anindividual’s socio-political and socio-economical factors. Rather than merely focusingon person-to-person therapeutic relationship, the nurturing of a reflexive environment(BECK, 1986) – where a fair redistribution of responsibility and participation
opportunity in understanding, deciding and implementing preventive actions between
all parties in the community is possible – is placed as the main factor that should
characterize the process. The significance that can be noted from the above suggested
model to Japan’s current situation lies in its comprehensive, reflexive, continuous andstrategic (well-planned) qualities that can be identified in the process of its approachand implementation.
OGASAWARA et al. (2005) defines ‘preventive welfare’ as a concept that generates
welfare services that possess in themselves the characteristics and functions to ‘feed
forward-control’ any category of individual and environmental risks that potentially act
as obstacles against the achievement of independency and autonomy of individuals.
Effective policy interventions (including preventive care) need comprehensive
approaches that involve individuals and their environment. Thus such policy
consideration requires individuals’ affairs, their social relations and their society to bethought of as ‘a set’ in most situations. This perspective contrasted the earlier
predominant concept of practice that was mainly ‘needs approach’ based where asystem would only operate to deliver specifically targeted (person-to-person)
therapeutic measures against cases that are judged as situated with a ‘confirmed
occurrence’ of needs.
The importance of person-environment relationship is also acknowledged in otherfields of studies. For example, in the early practice of gerontology (as argued from theperspective of successful ageing), the phenomena of intrinsic ageing were taken as
normal and mainly understood as a natural genetic transformation process. No
significant attention was given to the influence of external risk factors. However, this87

understanding was later acknowledged as untrue (ODA, 2003). Though the ageing
process can be understood as age-related, it does not necessarily mean age-dependent.
What is important in understanding the trend that determines the ageing process is not
the physical existence of illness and difficulties that one could observe, but the possible
existence of risks that will lead to such illness and difficulties. And, most of these risks
originate from individuals’ life style, their environment and other non-genetic factors.
The awareness towards the need to forward-control existing external (environmental)
risks and the necessity to conduct intervention patterns that ameliorate individuals’ life
patterns as argued here resembles efforts initiated in preventive action.
The term ‘preventive care’ was first introduced by Japan’s Ministry of Welfare in
the year 1999 and it has become widely used since the institutionalization of Preventive
Care and Living Support Task Policy in the year 2000 and the implementation ofCommunity-Based Welfare Planning Policy in the year 2003. The number of Japaneseelderly of 65 years and above is officially expected to be 35.7% of the overall
population by the year 2050. In a situation where the graying of society is advancing
with high speed, the earlier method that was mostly based on pathological intervention
became less efficient, and ‘preventive care’ thus becomes the new required standard forintervention (Society for the Study of Preventive Care, 2002). The introduction of theLong Term Care Insurance System was one of the major efforts by the Japanese
government to deal with this problem. However, the actualization of such a concept isvery lacking in the mechanism, and the existence of comprehensive programs that cansustain the independent living of the elderly in their long attached and familiar
neighborhood is hard to notice.
Generally, other than the prevention of illness, the aim of preventive care in Japan
is to delay the physical, psychological and social functions’ decline due to the ageing
process and to support the continuation of independent living of the elderly even after
they fall into the situation of ‘needing care’ (KUROTA and FUJII, 2002). In this situation,
the ideal function of a social worker in delivering preventive care is to lead a role as a
total care coordinator through a multifaceted approach which allows practice to occur
on a micro-level and a macro-level simultaneously (TAYLOR and ROBERTS, 1985;
OHASHI, 2002a). This concept of a ‘total care coordinator’ is explained by OHASHI(2002b) in his argument relating to ‘community social worker competency’ thatemphasizes the importance of a community social work method 1 . This argument
1

A method that further developed and combined care work techniques with community work

techniques – an individual intervention method that is complemented by a community network(OHASHI, 2002b)

88

significantly merits attention in the field of preventive care due to its efforts to combine
both the policy and practice, and provide a justification for such action in a way thattranscends the earlier dominating concept in welfare provisioning in order to pursue
implementation of measures that are comprehensive and reflexive. His framework ofargument permeates widely into different areas of welfare due to its high practicality
and universality.
Preventive care practice needs social network-based problem solution,
collaboration and partnership, situation-close intervention, coordinated and collective
decision making, interdependency, a fair task delegation and meaningful two-way
engagement between all members for its effective implementation. In other words, thepreventive concept needs a comprehensive and at the same time reflexive2 policy in its
exercise, and these characteristics of policy can only be sustained in an environment
where there exist solidarity, reciprocity and independency.
Solidarity, Reciprocity and Independency in Policy
The adoption of a solidarity and reciprocity concept, to some extent, could betraced from the history of policy development in Japan. One of the early attempts topromote solidarity was reflected in the establishment of the National Insurance System,
the National Pension System, and the amendment of the Three Basic Welfare Laws to
Six Basic Welfare Laws that was conducted in the late 1960s (Training School
Committee for Social Worker in Japan, 2003). The efforts to foster this solidarity werethen further developed and strengthened with the introduction of the element ofreciprocity. This was strongly reflected in the awakening of debates such as‘Reconsidering Welfare’ and ‘Japanese Welfare Model’ in the 1970s (NAKAMURA andICHIBANGASE, 1998). These arguments were conducted with the mission to re-strengthen
the deteriorating quality of independence, self-help, reciprocity and solidarity in thefamily unit and the community. And, rather than the attempt to merely conduct a
cut-back on the provided services, it was more towards considering the practice forsocial restructuring and policy implementation that would correspond to the low
economic growth that was recorded during that period.
The first step of reciprocity introduction at the level of ideology and policy
2

A reflexive individual would mean an individual who is capable of observing, filtering and using allsorts of information relevant to their life situations and routinely act on the basis of this process; and areflexive care system is a system where its decision making process is involving negotiation of different
discourses between different ideologies and subculture in order to ensure and sustain the developmentof understanding and responsibility of all agents involved (BECK 1986; GIDDENS, 1994).

89perspective was then further developed into actual practice by involving the private
sector in service provisioning in order to create an alternative service provider that can
together assist the shouldering of this responsibility. The establishment of the Social
Welfare Worker and Care Worker Act (1987) that laid down the qualifying standard forwelfare practitioners in Japan was the hallmark of this effort. The further requirement
for reflexive involvement from all related parties in the practice of welfare services
provisioning was next clearly mirrored in the implementation of ‘The Revision of Eight
Welfare Basic Law’ (1990). In this stage, the earlier efforts that emphasize reciprocity
and collaboration were further detailed with the establishment of a welfare information
sharing system in order to pursue the services’ entire integrity and efficacy, theimplementation of coordinated and well planned services consisting of integrated
services from both health and social services areas, and the creation of a mechanism thatcan enable the provisioning of both home care services and institutional care services atthe level of local authorities in a manner that is more humane. The above waspractically implemented through the devolution of the welfare planning system from acentrally controlled to locally administered procedure, creation of equal relationships,
active participation of all, equal shouldering of responsibility, guaranteeing transparency,
nurturing the culture of welfare in the society, and the most challenging, the dismantlingof the ‘Sochi System’3.
Finally, the following stage of development advocates the involvement of all in theworking of a social system, especially of individuals, as a matter of rights rather thanmerely a requirement for contribution. A more concrete measure involving a series oflaw amendments was initiated through the implementation of the ‘Fundamental
Structure Reformation of Welfare’ (2000) and the concept of a contract-based welfare
provisioning system (i.e. Long Term Care Insurance System) was introduced. Though
the adoption of the solidarity and reciprocity concept is to some extent observable, yetthere is a need to probe deeper into this discourse (especially on its relation to
independency). For a long time the argument of solidarity in Japan was carried out andhalted at the theoretical level in the absence of thorough efforts to further actualize theideology through arguments on, and practices of reciprocity, and the pursuance ofself-independency. This lack of the discourse of independency and reciprocity tainted
the authenticity of the formed solidarity. In most of its parts, the formation of solidarity
in Japan was more of a guided process from above, rather than a process that arose upon
the understanding of the two.
The underlying reasons behind the lag in progress on the development of
3

The earlier practiced bureaucratic and centrally controlled referral system in Japan’s welfare.

90

independency among local authorities in Japan was due to its conservative andbureaucratic system make-up, and community members’ slow awareness towards theimportance of such attainment (UDA in Japanese Research Association for Community
Development, 1987). In other words, the strong tradition of a centralized administrative
system practice encouraged citizens’ weak awareness towards the need to beautonomous4. This is a characteristic that is to some extent still visible in the running ofsocial welfare administration at the local authority level in Japan even today (FURUKAWA,
2003; OHASHI, 2003). Other than that, it was also noted that most of the community
participation practices that were conducted by the citizens were characteristicallypassive (i.e. initiated by a government directive rather than through autonomous
initiative). The incapability of individuals to fully adapt to the radical and drastic
introduction of plans and policies that suddenly require active participation andautonomy could be one of the reasons explaining this passiveness (HASHIMOTO andMIURA, 1973).
The capability of (only) the public sector in coping with the drastic and everchanging social welfare needs is limited (UDA in Japanese Research Association forCommunity Development, 1987). For such reasons, decentralization with aims to
reduce bureaucracy and dependency, and to promote participation and collaboration(reciprocity) was initiated through efforts to shift the process of decision-making for
4

TAMAI (2005) presented a contradicting argument to this statement. Tamai argues that though theearlier official executive entities of social policies were the government and municipalities, enterprises
especially have also performed significant functions as an alternative force that drove the expansion ofsocial policy in Japan through their active labor market policies. TAMAI proved it in his argument thatthe formation of solidarity with reciprocal action did take place at a level lower than state policy
guidance (i.e. through the formation of welfare institutions within companies, the formation oflabor-management conference systems with aims to ameliorate labor conditions, and the expansion ofcoverage of the Employment Law to include elderly people, women, the disabled and foreign workers).
Though to some extent we agree with the validity of this claim, nevertheless, we still feel that theargument of solidarity mirrored above is somewhat different (in terms of its impartiality) from thesense of solidarity that we intend to bring forward here, in a way that it is: 1) less inclusive due to its
restriction to the attainment of employment as a condition to be included in the process of solidarity; 2)limited in terms of its function due to its restricted notion that confines the definition of individuals’
diverse capabilities (that qualify individuals’ participation in solidarity) merely to ‘performing paid
work’; 3) still a ‘guided’ process of solidarity (in this context, by employer or labor union), though theformation of such process may have been initiated at a level lower than the state policy.

91

policy and its implementation from central government to local authorities. Among thefactors that heavily determine the success or failure of these decentralizing efforts are;individuals’ participation in decision making regarding the policy, the flexibility interms of resources mobilization, and the existence of administration staff withprofessional knowledge. However, looking at Japan’s current condition, it is rather hardto agree that these factors sufficiently exist (FURUKAWA, 2005). The initiated practices
were nothing more than just a ‘controlled or regulated decentralization’ (NAKAMURA andICHIBANGASE, 1998). Efforts were limited to the creation of alternative service providers
that only function as a mechanical service producer (at the service output end), while
the rights to decide the direction of allocation of resources to be distributed remain
intact under the monopoly control of the bureaucracy. Further, legal requirement andsource of revenue became factors that continue to tie local authority under the control ofcentral government (OGASAWARA and TAKEGAWA, 2002).
The flow of welfare policy development in Japan has shown numerous efforts topromote, attain and sustain the concept of solidarity, reciprocity and independency.
However, most of these approaches and arguments were conducted from the viewpointof service providers or scholars – viewpoints that are diverse from service recipients’own. Above that, though the subject of solidarity and even reciprocity were to a large
extent strongly reflected in the policy arguments, little was done on the part ofindependency and its related importance to the concept of reciprocity and solidarity. In
Japan, the argument relating to individuals’ independency attainment and its necessity
was conducted with lack of theoretical consistency (OGASAWARA and TAKEGAWA, 2002).
Argument relating to independency attainment is crucial in preventive action because
independency preconditions the concept of contributive obligation that leads the
conduct of reciprocity – one of the core factors that sustain the possible implementationof preventive strategy. For this reason, it is in this part that we feel the most formidable
challenge to the practice of ‘prevention’ would lie – that is, to ensure the attainment
independency of every individual for the possible exercise of reciprocity (based oncontributive obligation ideology), and to form active solidarity from the collective
discharge of reciprocal action by these individuals. These are the main conditions that
determine the faith of any preventive strategy.
Conclusion
The intention to promote a ‘preventive concept’ in welfare must not focus merelyon physical or mechanical efforts involving policy measures or service delivery systems,
but equally necessarily on agendas that consider the amelioration of ideologicalperspectives of all involving parties – especially relating to fair distribution of duties

92

and responsibilities in its implementation. It goes deeper into the basic question of‘what are the type of solidarity, reciprocity, and independency that ought to be pursued
for the possible implementation of such action’, and this necessitates re-argument on theprivate-public boundary in our life spheres.
In the contemporary situation where the state’s function is partly diminishing, theattempt to restructure society is conditioned by the possible formation of a public policy
through a collective will formation and decision making that promotes ‘mutual common
areas for concern and action’. The aim to sustain solidarity is very less likely attainable
unless the process is mutual, and mutuality in this sense should be founded on
autonomous relationships. For example, Article 25 of the Japanese Constitution
advocates ‘the minimum level of healthy and civilized living’ through the provisioningof social security to its citizens. What is important here is to ensure that individuals areguaranteed this entitlement with the assurance that this granting will not impel thesurrendering of one’s freedom as against the state, or other fellow citizens (SAITO,
2004).
GOTO et al.’s argument relating to the redrawing of the private-public boundary inpolicy practice for the formation of solidarity through reciprocity is articulated throughtheir argument on the necessity to construct a public or common rule that is able tojustly weight, impartially consider and fully acknowledge the diverse condition ofindividuals belonging to a different category and social position (2004). Although there
is a need to respect the autonomous decision of all organizations in a society (including
the society itself), there is also a need for the formation of a publicly accepted rule thatwill sustain the autonomous relationship between all existing organizations, and thatwill guarantee the freedom of individual members from the possible pressure thatoriginates from the organization they associate with.
The contemporarily desired public-private relation, as argued by SAITO and GOTO
et al., is to create a fair public sphere that acknowledges a private domain with its
accompanying rights. In this context, rights should be accompanied by duties andresponsibilities, and the binding relation that unites these conceptions of rights andequal duties is an autonomous relationship. This notion of autonomy calls for theargument on independency attainment for every individual and it is here that thedesirability of welfare services lie – the capacity to become a mean in assisting
individuals to attain their independency and to sustain a certain level of satisfying
quality of life (OGASAWARA and HIRANO, 2004).
In addition to the concepts of ‘self-reliant independency’, that is being independent
in terms of one’s physical and psychological condition, and ‘collective independency’,that is being accepted as a part of the community as an active member and at the same93

time capable of living as an independent agent in it, the concept of autonomy is at thecore in defining independency (OGASAWARA and HIRANO, 2004). The possible
achievement of independency stands on the availability of a guarantee for this autonomy(independent decision making and self-control). Furthermore, solidarity formation to
enable collective action should be based on the mutual acknowledgement andacceptance of the different perspectives of independency and autonomy that individuals
posses and value. These are the conditions that nurture the capacity of individuals’
reflexive function in the community.
Reconstructing social solidarities should be carried out through the reconciliationof autonomy and interdependency (collective independency) in the various spheres ofsocial life (GIDDENS, 1994). In this context, autonomy and interdependency should beconnected by pure relationships5 and active trust6. Active trust and pure relationships,
through dialogue, will lead to the democracy of the emotion in the area of personal life
(autonomy). To the extent to which it comes into being, the democracy of the emotion
would have major implications for the furtherance of public action. Individuals who
have a good understanding of their own emotional makeup, and who are able tocommunicate effectively with others on a personal basis, are likely to be better prepared
for the wider tasks and responsibilities of active citizenship. Only when individuals
perceive themselves as independent and autonomous, and understand the importantnotion of reciprocity to sustain the needed interdependency (that founded solidarity),
could they then build themselves to respect others’ autonomy, to appreciate differences,and become more emotionally and practically inclusive. It is through the collective
attainment of individuals’ independency and autonomy, and through the collective
performance of individuals’ effective participation in the community that a genuine
solidarity can be formed. This is the basis that will likely support and sustain theeffective and long run implementation of any measures for the improvement of thesituation in the community (in this context, including preventive care in welfare).
Note
The conceptual idea of ‘prevention’ as presented in this paper originated from ourinvolvement in the research project entitled ‘A Research on Social and Organizational
Condition for the Creation and Systematization of a New Welfare Services (A Second5

A relationship that is entered into and sustained for the rewards that association with others canbring (GIDDENS, 1994).
6

A trust which has to be won rather than coming from the conventionally established traditionalsocial arrangements (GIDDENS, ibid).

94

Term Research for Academic Frontier Promotion Project, 2004~2008) – B Group
Research Project’ that is currently conducted by the Kansei7 Based Welfare ResearchCenter of Tohoku Fukushi University. We wish to officially request permission to citesome of the early findings from this research project (i.e. OGASAWARA et al., 2005) to bepresented in this paper, and wish to thank the Center in advance for the kindconsideration and approval to be given.

References
Austin, M. J. (Ed.) (2004)
Changing Welfare Services: Case Studies of Local Welfare Reform Programs,
United States, The Haworth Social Work Practice Press
Beck, U. (Original Version, 1986) (English Translated Version, 1992)
Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Great Britain, SAGE Publications
Drèze, J. and Sen, A. (1989)
Hunger and Public Action, Great Britain, Oxford University Press
Furukawa, K. (2003)
The Principles of Social Welfare (First Edition), Japan, Seishin Shobo (inJapanese)
Furukawa, K. (2005)
The Principles of Social Welfare (Second Edition), Japan, Seishin Shobo (inJapanese)
Giddens, A. (1994)
Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics, Great Britain, Polity
Press
Glasby, J. and Littlechild, R. (2004)
The Health and Social Care Divide: The Experiences of Older People, GreatBritain, The Policy Press
Goto, R., Suzuki, K. and Yuichi, S. (Eds.) (2004)
The Public Philosophy of Welfare, Japan, Tokyo University Press (in Japanese)7

At this point, we are still unable to identify any equivalent word in English that can precisely

explain the meaning of ‘kansei’ due to our limitation of knowledge. However, we identified that while
the nearest words that can explain the meaning of ‘kansei’ from the perspective of an individual(behavior) are sensitivity and / or sensibility, the nearest word that can explain the meaning of ‘kansei’
from the perspective of a (i.e. social) system is reflexivity.

95Gould, N. and Baldwin, M. (Eds.) (2004)
Social Work, Critical Reflection and the Learning Organization, Great Britain,
AshgateHashimoto, M and Miura, F. (1973)
Community Action: Community Work for Health and Welfare, Japan, The
National Council of Social Welfare (in Japanese)
Jahiel, R. I. (Ed) (1992)
Homelessness: A Prevention-Oriented Approach, United States, The Johns
Hopkins University Press
Japanese Research Association for Community Development (1987)
Community-Based Welfare in Japan: The Journal for the Japanese Research
Association for Community Development (Vol. 1), Japan, Japanese Research
Association for Community Development (in Japanese)
Kurota, K and Fujii, H. (2002)
Locally Developed Preventive Care: Preventive Care Strategy, Japan, Chuo
Hoki (in Japanese)
L’Abate, L. (1990)
Building Family Competence: Primary and Secondary Strategies, UnitedStates, Sage Publications
Meredith Davies, B. (1995)
Public Health, Preventive Medicine and Social Services, Great Britain,
Edward Arnold
Nakamura, Y. and Ichibangase, Y. (Eds.) (1998)
The World Social Welfare 3, Japan, Junhosha (in Japanese)
Oda, T. (2003)
Some Conceptual and Methodological Considerations on Successful Ageing:
Human Sciences Research (Vol. 11, No. 1, 17-38), Japan, Kobe University (inJapanese)
Ogasawara, K. (2005)
Academic Frontier Promotion Project, Kansei Based Welfare Research Centerof Tohoku Fukushi University: 11th General Meeting for B Research Group(The Group’s Overall Research Outcome as of 26th January 2005), Japan,
Kansei Based Welfare Research Center of Tohoku Fukushi University (inJapanese)
Ogasawara, K., Abe, Y. and Doi, K. (2005)
Academic Frontier Promotion Project, Kansei Based Welfare Research Centerof Tohoku Fukushi University: 11th General Meeting for B Research Group96

(The Group’s Overall Research Outcome as of 26th January 2005), Japan,
Kansei Based Welfare Research Center of Tohoku Fukushi University (inJapanese)
Ogasawara, K and Hirano, M. (2004)
A Discourse on Social Policy Research: Validating Miura’s Theory, Japan,
Chuo Hoki (in Japanese)
Ogasawara, K. and Takegawa, S. (Eds.) (2002)
The Transfiguration of the Welfare State: Globalization and Decentralization,
Japan, Toshinto (in Japanese)
Ohashi, K. (2002a)
Social Work Research Journal (Vol. 28, No.1): Community-Based Welfare
Planning and Community Social Work, Japan (in Japanese)
Ohashi, K. (2002b)
Community-Based Welfare, Japan, Open University (in Japanese)
Ohashi, K. (2003)
A Journal on Comprehensive Rehabilitation (Vol. 31, No.3): The Position andRole of a Care Manager – Community Social Work and Local Independent
Living Support, Japan (in Japanese)
Otto, H-U. and Flösser, G. (Eds) (1992)
How to Organize Prevention: Political, Organizational, and Professional
Challenges to Social Services, Germany, Walter de Gruyter
Roche, M. (1992)
Rethinking Citizenship: Welfare, Ideology and Change in Society, GreatBritain, Polity Press
Saito, J. (Ed.) (2004)
Welfare State: The Justification for Social Solidarity, Japan, Minerva Shoubo(in Japanese)
Seden, J. and Reynolds, J. (Eds.) (2003)
Managing Care in Practice, United Kingdom, The Open University
Society for the Study of Preventive Care (2002)
The Handbook for Preventive Care Practice: Extending the Healthy Lifespanof Individuals, Japan, Social Insurance Research Center (in Japanese)
Tamai, K. (Ed.) (2005)
The Development of Japanese Social Policies and Its Structural
Characteristics: Study on the Prolonged Transition from Adolescence toAdulthood for Social Policy: The Journal of Social Policy and Labor Studies(No. 13), Japan, Society for the Study of Social Policy

97

Taylor, S. H. and Roberts, R. B. (Eds.) (1985)
Theory and Practice of Community Social Work, United States, Columbia
University Press
Training School Committee for Social Workers in Japan (2003)
The Basic Knowledge for Social Workers 1 (in Japanese), Japan, Chuo Hoki
White, S. (2003)
The Civic Minimum, Great Britain, Oxford University Press

Website Reference
http://www.mkweb.co.uk(Koichi OGASAWARA, Tohoku Fukushi University,
NASRUDIN Baidi, Tohoku Fukushi University)

98

NIPPON URBAN MANAGEMENT AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
1. History and Outline of the Association
The Nippon Urban Management and Local Government Research Association(NUMLGRA) was founded on 23rd June 1984 during a founding convention held inOsaka with its purpose as an interdisciplinary and international research organization.
The objectives of the Association are:(1) promoting theoretical and political research works for more scientific, modernisticand democratic local autonomy systems,(2) contributing to local autonomy development.
To accomplish these objectives, the Association holds activities as follows: (1)holding a national convention annually and regional meetings at regular times in theyear, (2) publishing bulletins and collected papers on the latest issues in local autonomy
and administration, (3) offering new public policies, (4) doing joint research withrelated parties, (5) encouraging friendly relationships among members, and so on.
The Association consists of 289 individual members and two institutional members.
The individual members include 173 scholars, 69 Certified Public Accountants, 47
officials from concerned administrative bodies, and others (as of July 2004).
2. Annual National Convention (2000-2004)
The annual national convention of the Association is usually held every autumn. At
each convention, a common theme is set up by the host university. As the problems
related to local autonomy are various and increasingly more complicated, theAssociation needs to adopt interdisciplinary approaches to tackle them. Therefore,
researchers in many different fields are invited to present works at the convention.
The common themes, the presentations and the host universities since the 17th
convention (2000) are as follows.
The 17th annual convention was held at Wako University in September 2000 withthe common theme of Financial Burdens and Asset Accumulation of Local Government.
Under the above theme, a symposium, chaired by Noriyuki SHIMIZU (Meiji University),
was held with five panelists: Yasushi HARADA (Ministry of Finance), Hidemasa
IKEMIYAGI (Meiji University), Toshihisa KAWAI (Mayor of Matsudo City), Hideki
MATSUZAKI (Mayor of Urayasu City) and Hiromichi TAKEURA (Mayor of Tanoura
Town).
The 18th annual convention was held at Hiroshima Shudo University in September
2001 with the common theme of Decentralization and Local Assembly. Under the99

above theme, a symposium provoked earnest discussions among the participants.
Many kinds of suggestions and comments were provided especially from the membersof various local assemblies and these were successfully shared among all theparticipants. It must also be noted that prior to the common theme, Professor Dr. Klaus
LUEDER (German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer), who was invited tothis convention, made a keynote speech titled “Local Government’s Future from the
Perspective of Policy-Making” and based on this a panel discussion was held by threepanelists: Tadao MIYAKAWA (Reitaku University), Hiroshi YOSHIDA (Kobe Universityof Commerce) and Kiyoshi YAMAMOTO (Center for National University Finance andManagement).
The 19th annual convention was held at Osaka International University, September
2002 with the theme of The Restoration of Local Government from its Financial Crisis.
Under the above theme, a symposium was held by 3 panelists: Koshi HASHIMOTO(Kyoto Women’s University), Hiroshi SEKIGUCHI (Hosei University) and Munehisa
TAKEDA (PricewaterhouseCoopers, Japan).
The 20th annual convention was held at Meiji University, September 2003 with thetheme of Local Autonomy and the Association, which was specially set in honor of the
Association’s 20th anniversary. Noboru KITA, the president of the Association andEmeritus Professor of Meiji University, made an opening speech and four key personsof the Association, Tomoji ICHINOSE (International Christian University.), Hiroshi
YOSHIDA (Kobe University of Commerce), Rei SHIRATORI (Tokai University andInstitute for Political Studies in Japan) and Nobuhiro NAKAMICHI (Certified Public
Accountant), made noteworthy speeches on Local Autonomy along with theAdvancement of the Association.
The 21st annual convention was held Waseda University, August 2004 with thetheme of Evolution of New Public Management in Local Government. Following the
opening remarks by Masayasu KITAGAWA (Waseda University), Former Governor of
Mie Prefecture, keynote speeches were made by Colin TALLBOT (University of
Nottingham), Henk J. ter BOGT (University of Groningen, the Netherlands), June
PALLOT (University of Canterbury), Janice CAULFIELD (University of Hong Kong) and
Sawako TAKEUCHI (The University of Tokyo) who were invited to this convention;these were chaired by Kazuo AIDA (Keio University). Based on these propositions a
symposium was held by these five keynote speakers, three discussants: Kenji SHIBA(Kansai University), Takafumi KANEMURA (Meiji University) and Hisao TSUKAMOTO(Waseda University) and four commentators: Shun-ichi IZUMISAWA (KPMG Azusa &Co.), Akinari TAKEHISA (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu), Toshiharu MORIYA (Shin Nihon &Co.) and Ryoko SHIMIZU (PricewaterhouseCoopers), chaired by Kiyoshi YAMAMOTO

100

(Center for National University Finance and Management). Discussions led to very
productive implications for all the participants concerning the Old Public
Administration, New Public Management and New Public Services.
The 22nd annual convention was held at Shikoku University, August 2005 with thecommon theme of Restructuring the Decentralization in Japan from the Local
Government’s Perspective. Under the above theme, Kamon IIZUMI, Governor ofTokushima Prefecture, made a keynote speech that proposed critical issues and based on
this a symposium was held by five panelists: KAN Hyoung-Kee (Chungbuk National
University), Mari KOBAYASHI (Waseda University), Koshi HASHIMOTO (Kyoto
Women’s University), Tsutomu NAKANO (The Tokushima Shinbun) and Shu-ichi MORI
(Office of Regional Development of Tokushima Prefecture), coordinated by Masahiko
HAYASHI (University of Hyogo), chaired by Hiroshi WAKAYAMA (Shikoku University).
3. Publications
The Association issues a bulletin entitled the Journal of Urban Management andLocal Government Research. It is issued twice a year, and until now, it has been issued
thirty-six times, the latest one being volume 20 number 1. The first bulletin of the year
consists of presentations and extracts from the symposium under the common theme ofthe previous national convention, summaries of voluntary presentation sessions, andpresentations at each regional branch. The second bulletin of the year consists of papers
contributed by members.
The titles of the papers are remarkably various, and they reflect the nature of the
Association as an interdisciplinary study group. The topics of the papers can beclassified broadly into six categories as follows: (1) local autonomy systems, (2)regional management, (3) regional industrial developments, (4) financial affairs of local
governments, (5) governmental accounting and auditing, and (6) Information
Technology (IT) and new media in the public sector.
The Association also edited and published the collected papers relating to thecommemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Association’s foundation. The collection
was entitled Regional Management and Administrative and Financial Affairs of Local
Government (Zeimukeirikyokai, Tokyo, 1993) consisting of four sections and 15
chapters. The titles of each section are as follows:
Section Ⅰ The Theories and Practices of Regional Management
Section Ⅱ The Current Issues of Finance of Local Government
Section Ⅲ The Organization and Problems of Local Administration
Section Ⅳ The Current Issues of Accounting for Local Authorities.
A local autonomy study series was approved by the Association’s board of directors

101

in September 1995. The publication plan contains two points of view. The first point isto present problems about the new fields of local autonomy, whereas the latter is tointroduce the direction of studies about local autonomy in the world. Then, in March
1998, the Association also published a book titled Forefront Theory of Local Autonomy(Keso-Shobo, Tokyo, 1998), consisting of 13 chapters including preface.
4. Trends and Projections for the Association
The Association is composed of researchers and scholars from various specialized
fields in social science, and has actively contributed to the development of local
autonomy. It has adhered to interdisciplinary studies since its starting day and has alsooffered useful suggestions to the public on the basis of academic research. The
Association has tried to live up to the expectations of public demands, which call daily
for new methods in local governments and communities.
In 2003, the board of directors of the Association decided to endow an award for thebest paper and book at the annual meeting, in order to enhance the capability of the
Association to contribute to the development of local autonomy. All of the accepted
papers in the journal and books on the local autonomy are eligible for the award. The
first winners, Kiyoshi YAMAMOTO (Center for National University, Finance andManagement) for the best paper and Mitsuya YAMADA (Nihon University) for the best
book were chosen in the plenary session which was held at the annual convention,
August 2004.
At present, the Association is confronted with new social requests in theoretical andpractical fields in order to face the newly arisen social conflicts within our society.
The Association faces three active dimensions. First is the field where people live
and are active. Second is the field where the inertia operates of a regional feeling, which
residents have retained from the past. Third is the field where the government finds andoperates an optimal policy after viewing the above two dimensions. At present, eachdimension is threatened by a surge of social disturbances: (1) drastic development of theaging society with decreasing numbers of children, (2) development of technology
arising from industry and human life styles, (3) increasing problems of destruction of
the environment which threaten human life, (4) setting new international regulations(e.g. regulation for government deficit).
Confronted with these issues, the Association cannot continue to employ theexisting measures reflecting the empiricism of the public and private sectors. New
optimal resolutions and practical ones are needed on the bases of a theoreticalbackground. The Association is obliged to play a role to search for new ways.
Currently, the central government has proposed new visions on the basis of102intermediate and long-range viewpoints. These proposals will continually appear in the
future. Then how can local governments prepare themselves for these policies under thehigh tide of decentralization? Each local government naturally has its own wants andinterests. Moreover, they are asked to be accountable for their administration by theirresidents and people who have become skeptical about their high-cost government.
Considering such situations, the Association has reviewed its own administrative
system, and has come up with the following action plans. First is to open the national
convention to the public and encourage participation conferences concerning local
autonomy through TV conferences to promote international debate on decentralization.
Second is to communicate more actively with other academic societies by setting
integrated targets for discussion. Third is to have the functional capital facility to meetinformation technology development and correspond to various requirements of ourmembers.
As the financial deficit is becoming increasingly oppressive and theimplementations of various reforms are more and more accelerated in both the national
and local governments, it is obvious that the role of NUMLGRA in our society is
increasingly important.
(Mari KOBAYASHI, Waseda University)103