IIPS
Viewpoint Series

Taking a Hint from the British Civil Service System
for Reform of the Japanese Civil Service
Nozomu Okibe
Senior research fellow
IIPSNovember 2003

In the latter half of the 1990s, comprehensive reform of the organization of Japan’s
public administration was undertaken for the first time since World War II. Thesereforms were influenced by certain aspects of the public administration structure in theUnited Kingdom, such as the two layers of government ministers (cabinet ministers andministers outside the cabinet) and the so-called “next-step agencies.”
Though Japan is currently engaged in reforming its system of civil servants, it seems
that there has been insufficient discussion on what the essential nature of civil servants
should be. Whereas a contrastingly high level of interest was shown in the administrative
structure in the UK, it cannot be said that Japan has up to now devoted sufficientattention to a discussion of the essential characteristics of UK civil servants.
Since the latter half of the nineteenth century, the essential role of British civil servants
as impartial advisors to government ministers of the time and as fair implementers ofpolicy has been established through a system of selection and promotion based on merit.
In this context, integrity, propriety, impartiality, and objectivity have made up the corecivil service values. These values—and the duties attendant upon them—are specificallyand clearly prescribed in the Civil Service Code and other related codes and form thebasis of the civil servant’s ethos.
However, these values and this ethos are not immutable. The Thatcher and Major
governments of the 1980s and 1990s introduced reforms emphasizing the importance ofthe recipients of administrative services (the users) and mandating a quantitative andtransparent management of public business, as exemplified by the agencies. Against thebackdrop of these reforms, the degree of accountability of civil servants was increased sothat, not only were they accountable to government ministers, they were also directlyaccountable to the public. This, in turn, raises issues regarding the definitive limits ofministerial accountability, one of the pillars of the British system of democracy. The
Blair government’s delegation of a greater role to politically appointed special advisors
also raised questions regarding the political neutrality of civil servants.
Principles and rules governing Japan’s public servants are laid down in the National
Civil Service Law. As well as prescribing democracy and efficiency as principles for
public administration, this law also sets out standards of conduct, “service for the public©Institute for International Policy Studies 2003

1

IIPS
Viewpoint Seriesinterest,” “prohibition on behavior that might lead to lack of trust,” “restrictions onpolitical activity,” “separation of duties from private business,” and “prohibition on
improper disclosure of official information.” In addition, in accordance with theprovision in Article 15 of the Constitution, that “All public officials are servants of thewhole community and not of any group thereof,” public officials are required to exhibit“neutrality” and “impartiality.”
If the Constitution and the National Civil Service Law (as mentioned above), theFreedom of Information Law and National Civil Service Ethics Law that were enacted in
1999 and others are taken together, it can be argued that Japan too has rules that arebroadly equivalent in substance to those established in the UK, as one or other of theselaws either includes or implies each of the same points. However, to quote just one such
example, with the existing rules covering the political neutrality of career civil servants
under the present system of democracy, the National Civil Service Law only imposes
restrictions on political activity by individuals and contains no explicit provisions dealing
with issues such as the proper relationship between career civil servants and the politicalparty in power at the time. Thus, there is scope for legislation that redefines andsystematically adjusts core rules. In addition, as a prerequisite to this, it is essential that
discussion of the relationships between the government and civil service, and between thepublic and civil service, be intensified, and that general consensus on proper relationships
be achieved not only at the level of those who take public office but throughout all levelsof society.
The boundary between civil servants and politicians: the essence of the political neutralityof civil servants
Of all the afore-mentioned demands that the rules impose on public servants, the ideal ofpolitical neutrality is viewed as the most difficult.
While UK civil servants are under cabinet control (based on the system of parliament
and the cabinet), a merit-based appointment system is employed. From the rank ofpermanent secretary downwards, the Civil Service is comprised almost solely ofpolitically neutral career civil servants, and to this extent the system is the same as inJapan. However, in the UK (where there had been a long history of a patronage system),as power regularly changes hands from one party to the other, people are acutely aware of
the significance of “political neutrality.” Moreover, both ministers and civil servants arecharged with an explicit obligation to preserve the neutrality of career civil servants.
In modern-day Japan (especially from the middle of the Meiji Era onwards, andessentially up until the present day) a merit-based appointment system has been
rigorously applied. Moreover, pre-war government officials were in fact the emperor’sofficials, and were thus originally detached from the will of the people. Furthermore,during the long post-war period of Liberal Democratic Party rule, seldom was there
opportunity to call into question or test the political neutrality of civil servants. Thus, it isessential that discussion be continued regarding the nature of the government’s control
over the civil service (including the making of politically motivated appointments), andregarding the way in which the government and the civil service should work in concert.
The boundary between civil servants and the public©Institute for International Policy Studies 2003

2IIPS
Viewpoint Series
In the UK, in keeping with the system of merit-based appointments, a scheme of external
appointments based on open competition (known as the “Administration Trainee
Scheme”) is already being introduced in the wake of the Fulton Report. At present, seniorcivil service posts are generally filled using open competition, without discrimination
between internal and external applicants. In addition, as great emphasis is being placedon cost effectiveness, with processes such as “agencification” and “market testing”
having been adopted in the management of public administration, the boundaries between
public and private organizations have changed, and the need to preserve the civil servant
ethos—in whatever way possible—is becoming an important point of issue.
In Japan, the status of civil servants have up to now been isolated from the private
sector. However, from now on, as factors such as increased personnel exchange between
civil service and private organizations and the expansion of independent administrative
agencies could come into play, the proper boundaries between the private sector and thecivil service looks set to become a major issue.
Regaining public trust
In the UK, the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life identified thefollowing requirements as necessary “to sustain public trust”: (1) high standards ofconduct; (2) clarity about the boundaries of responsibility within the executive andsecurity about the maintenance of these boundaries; (3) government administration inaccordance with the Seven Principles of Public Life for holders of public office; (4)provision of a robust framework for civil servants for delivering the programme of thegovernment of the day; (5) the building and sustaining by office-holders in the executive
department of the relationships necessary for good government, so that all concerned canknow clearly where they stand; and (6) as a matter of great importance, the prevention ofincidents harmful to the relationship between ministers, civil servants and specialadvisors.
These points could equally well apply to Japan. Naturally, the recurrence of scandals andthe like should be prevented. Moreover, as the world economic environment changes
with ever increasing speed, and as demands on administrators increase and grow morecomplex, civil servants must come to grips with relevant contemporary issues by
imparting these concepts in order to regain and maintain public trust.

©Institute for International Policy Studies 2003

3