Hiromi Yamamoto

IIPS
Institute forInternational Policy Studies•
IIPS Policy Paper 293E
January 2003

New Public Management Japan’s Practice

HIROMI YAMAMOTO

32 ◆ IIPS 2003

Hiromi Yamamoto

INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY STUDIESThe Institute for International Policy Studies was establishedin June 1988 as an independent research center. In cooperation with other domestic and international research organizations, IIPS examines global security, economic, andenvironmental issues, and proposes policies to address
present and future trends. The Institute issues papers inJapanese and English, publishes a quarterly newsletter, andproduces Asia-Pacific Review, a journal of debate on the
Asia-Pacific region.
INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY STUDIES,
Toranomon 5 Mori Building, 5F,
1-17-1 Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0001, Japan
Telephone: (03) 5253-2511
Facsimile: (03) 5253-2510
Chairman
Yasuhiro Nakasone
President
Yoshio Okawara
Research Director
Taizo Yakushiji
EditorPhil Robertson

IIPS POLICY PAPERS are written by distinguished research
fellows, senior research fellows, and visiting scholars of theInstitute for International Policy Studies. The views
expressed in each paper are those of the author and do notnecessarily represent the views of the Institute forInternational Policy Studies.

For additional copies, reprints and permissions, or otherinformation, please contact:
IIPS PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT
Toranomon 5 Mori Building, 5F,
1-17-1 Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0001, Japan
Telephone: (03) 5253-2511
Facsimile: (03) 5253-2510
e-mail:editor@iips.org© Editorial Group
Institute for International Policy Studies 2003
PRINTED IN JAPAN34 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

IIPS Policy Paper 293E
January 2003

New Public Management Japan’s Practice

HIROMI YAMAMOTO

Contents
Introduction
Importance of the Study
Origins of NPM
Principles of NPM
Analytical Theories of NPM
Critiques of NPM
NPM as Global Paradigm?
Public Sector Reforms in Post-War Japan
Origins of NPM Reform in JapanNPM Application (1) — Policy Evaluation
NPM Application (2) — Agencification
Future Prospects for NPM Practice in Japan
Conclusions
Notes
Bibliography

Page 1Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 6
Page 7
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12Page 14
Page 17
Page 22
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26

IIPS 2003 ◆ 33

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

New Public Management - Japan’s
Practice

HIROMI YAMAMOTONew Public Management (NPM) has become one of the dominant paradigms for publicmanagement across the world. This paper briefly reviews NPM and discusses NPM reforms
in Japan. The paper explores the conditions under which NPM reforms were introduced inJapan’s public sector, and examines the NPM reforms which have been introduced. It also
analyzes the peculiarly Japanese features of the NPM reforms and future prospects. This
paper concludes with a discussion of how NPM reforms in Japan are limited in scope to
only two fields—policy evaluation and agencification—and how NPM principles havebeen introduced selectively. Although modeled on the United States’ Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Executive Agencies of the UK, Japan’s
NPM reforms differ from these original models in several crucial respects. The negative
view of NPM which bureaucrats hold is a barrier to the further introduction of NPM
reforms in the public sector in Japan.

Introduction
A new paradigm for public management, called “New Public Management” (hereafterNPM), has emerged since the 1980s. The term NPM came into use at the beginning of
the 1990s to describe public sector reforms in the UK and New Zealand, as a conceptual
device invented for the purposes of structuring discussion of changes in the organizationand management of government. The principles of NPM are in general characterized byan emphasis on output controls, the disaggregation of traditional bureaucratic organizations
and the decentralization of management authority, the introduction of market and quasimarket mechanisms, and customer-oriented services (Hood, 1991: 4-5; OECD, 1995: 8,
15).
In the UK, for example, increased pressures forced the government to cope witheconomic problems, including high rates of unemployment and inflation, and with longstanding criticism of the quality and efficiency of public services. Prime Minister Thatcher,
who had a clear idea of what she wanted to do, was deeply committed to promotingchange in government. The NPM movement gained in popularity and in the early 1990s
NPM was adopted by the Clinton Administration in the United States, which, despite thebuoyant state of its economy, had experienced problems in the civil service similar to
those seen in the UK. Under the slogan of “reinventing government” (Osborne and

IIPS 2003 ◆ 1

Hiromi Yamamoto

Gaebler, 1992), the adoption of NPM took shape in Vice President Al Gore’s 1993 “National
Performance Review.” In the light of problems such as accumulated debt (at least until the mid1990s in the case of many OECD countries) and drastic external environmental change
characterized by the OECD (1995: 21) as “deregulation and internationalization,” the role ofthe public sector was being severely questioned and pressure for management change in the
public sector was strengthening. The OECD, the World Bank, and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) have been keen advocates of NPM reforms around the world, and NPM has been
expanding to more countries.
As the NPM movement expanded, during the mid-1990s a few scholars in Japan began to
discuss NPM. Some of the public sector reforms adopted by Prime Minister Hashimoto (11January 1996-30 July 1998), who took strong initiatives to carry out extensive public sector
reforms in the late 1990s, were based on certain NPM principles.
This research paper discusses issues relating to NPM, including its principles and analyticaltheories, and critiques of NPM. Then, it explores the conditions under which NPM reforms
were introduced in Japan’s public sector, and examines the NPM reforms which have been
introduced. This research paper also analyzes the peculiarly Japanese features of these NPM
reforms and future prospects.

Importance of the Study
The importance of this study is that, first of all, many countries consider NPM principles effective
for public sector reforms, as shown by the increasing number of countries that have introduced
the NPM principles; therefore, it is crucial to research NPM. As already mentioned, the OECD,
the World Bank, and the IMF are keen advocates of NPM reforms across the world; thus, NPM
principles have been introduced not only in industrialized OECD member countries, such as
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA, but also in developing countries,
including India, Jamaica, and Thailand (McCourt, 2002: ch. 14; Talbot and Pollitt et al., 2000:
3). In the light of this trend, there is a strong possibility that NPM principles will spread to evenmore countries in the future.
On the other hand, the practice of NPM principles in Japan has not been examined to any
great extent—and hardly at all in English—even though a number of scholars have shown aninterest in it. Hood (1995a: 110) insists that Japan has not followed other OECD countries
closely, arguing that “more rather than less stress seems to have been put into ‘legalistic’ stylesof administration using written documents (for example, in business regulation).” NPM principles
require business-like contractual arrangements as a tool for controlling output and efficiency
and for securing accountability. However, Japanese business custom is not always based on
written contracts—rather, it is based on trust, created by long-term relationships between
individuals or organizations. Hood indirectly implies that, in the light of these factors, Japan
would not adopt NPM principles as other OECD countries did. In addition, Pollitt (1998: 4849) argues that Japan (as well as Germany) appears distinctly lukewarm towards NPM. He

2 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practiceexplained that the reason why he made this assertion was that he had rarely recognized any
participants from Japan (or Germany) at Public Management Service (PUMA) conferences
organized by the OECD (interview in January 2000).
Accordingly, western scholars are keen to know how Japan (the most industrialized country
in Asia) practices NPM principles, particularly now that NPM principles have recently been
gradually introduced in other Asian countries through assistance programs set up by the WorldBank and the IMF. One obstacle confronting western scholars wishing to carry out research
into how Japan practices NPM principles is the language barrier (interview with Prof. Pollitt in
January 2000). Thus, this research paper aims to provide this analysis.

Origins of NPM
The NPM approach to public management was in general founded on a critique of bureaucracy
as the organizing principle within public administration (Dunleavy, 1991). Bureaucracy, it wasclaimed, is plagued by progressive inflexibility based on complex hierarchical rule-based systems
and top-down decision-making processes, which causes it to become increasingly distant fromcitizens’ expectations.
The focus of the NPM movement was to mirror what were seen as critical aspects of private
sector modes of organizing and managing (Dawson and Dargie, 2002: 35), assuming thesuperiority of the private sector and private sector management techniques to those of the public
sector and public administration (Metcalfe, 1989). While government remained “rigid andbureaucratic, expensive, and inefficient” (Pierre, 2000: 5), the private sector, it was claimed,
was forced to undergo radical change because, from the 1980s onwards, companies were exposed
to severe competition on the international stage and had to seek to exploit new opportunities.
Management innovation was promoted in the private sector, as described by authors such as
Peters and Waterman (1982), and Deal and Kennedy (1982).
Government is urged to adopt both the “techniques” of business administration and business“values,” which include the values of competition, a preference for market mechanisms as ameans of social choice, and respect for the entrepreneurial spirit (deLeon and Denhardt, 2000:
90; Kamensky 1996: 251). Since the 1990s, public sector reforms have therefore had to go
beyond simply acknowledging that there are fundamental differences between the public andprivate sectors; instead, as far as possible, the public sector has had to follow the “best practice”
model of private sector management.

IIPS 2003 ◆ 3

Hiromi Yamamoto

Principles of NPM
NPM is an umbrella term (Metcalfe, 1998: 1) which encompasses a wide range of meanings,
including organization and management design, the application of new institutional economics
to public management, and a pattern of policy choices (Barzelay, 2002: 15). There has been
debate over the precise nature of NPM (Dunleavy and Hood, 1994: 9; Hood, 1995b: 94), but
the guiding principles of NPM have basically been agreed among scholars. According to Hood
(1991: 4-5; 1995b: 96), they can be summarized in the following seven doctrines:(1) an emphasis on hands-on professional management skills for active, visible,
discretionary control of organizations (freedom to manage);(2) explicit standards and measures of performance through clarification of goals,
targets, and indicators of success;(3) a shift from the use of input controls and bureaucratic procedures to rules relying
on output controls measured by quantitative performance indicators;(4) a shift from unified management systems to disaggregation or decentralizationof units in the public sector;(5) an introduction of greater competition in the public sector so as to lower costs
and achievement of higher standards through term contracts, etc.;(6) a stress on private-sector-style management practices, such as the use of shortterm labor contracts, the development of corporate plans, performance agreements,and mission statements;(7) a stress on cost-cutting, efficiency, parsimony in resource use, and “doing morewith less.” (Emphases as in original by Hood, 1991: 4-5)

Examining the NPM principles with regard to management, the first principle refers to “handson management” and the “freedom to manage,” suggesting that visible top managers should
control public organizations more actively by wielding discretionary power (Hood, 1991: 4).
The emphasis is moved away from policy skills and personnel management rules towards
active management, and away from relatively anonymous bureaucrats to visible managers at
the top of public sector organizations (Hood, 1995b: 96-97). Clear assignment of responsibility
is required from the point of view of accountability, rather than diffusion of power (Hood,
1991: 4; 1995b: 96).
In addition, NPM applies proven private sector management tools to the public sector, withflexibility regarding the hiring of staff and their compensation, as described in the sixth principle.
Just like top executives in private sector organizations, top executives in the public sector mustpossess professional management skills and are, ideally, given the freedom to exercise flexibility
in organizational management and in the hiring and compensation of staff.
As a counterpart to the discretion and flexibility allowed, the output-orientation described in
the third principle requires organizations and staff to work to performance targets; this breaks
up traditional input controls and rule-governed process-orientation. Resource allocation andrewards are linked to measured performance (Hood, 1991: 4), in order that transparency andaccountability may be strengthened. Performance evaluation of programs or policies, as discussed
later, is one public sector reform that is based on this principle.
4 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

Before NPM, outputs had of course been crucial for citizens as public service receivers, andalso for governments in their capacity as the providers who were required to generate the optimal
effects from their policies. However, inputs and processes had been stressed much more than
outputs, because of the difficulty of measuring public service outputs objectively and becauseof the necessity for democratic control of the processes whereby public money is utilized. Thechange to output-orientation based on NPM implies an abolition or lessening of traditional
strict input controls and process-orientation; on the other hand, accountability for outputs isstrengthened through the requirement for clear statements of goals, targets and indicators ofsuccess, and performance measurement based on pre-determined standards/indicators ofachievement—“management by objective”—as described in Hood’s second principle. Although
James Wilson (1989: 25-26) defined traditional bureaucracy as having overarching goals, NPM
requires the precise definition of goals, targets, and indicators of performance measurement.
Hood’s fourth principle of disaggregation/decentralization breaks up traditional monolithic
bureaucratic units into separately managed corporatized flat units (Hood, 1991: 5; Hood, 1995b:
95; Pollitt, 1995: 134). Agencification, which separates the policy implementation function
from the policy-making function, is one public sector reform that is based on the NPM principleof disaggregation/decentralization, as discussed later. The purposes of decentralization are thecreation of manageable units and the delegation of authority, enabling quick and flexible decisionmaking which reflects citizens’ demands. Peters and Waterman (1982: xvi) insisted thatexcellence came from “small, competitive bands of pragmatic bureaucracy-beaters”—units
that share an intensity about what they do based on love of their product and a desire to serve
the customer. The “kanban system” or the just-in-time inventory system—an idea originatedby the Japanese car company Toyota—delegates authority for making decisions to front-liners,
and has achieved high productivity and efficiency. In addition, decentralization is effective interms of responding to citizen’s demands and preferences, which may vary within a country
from region to region.
Decentralization, described as “separating the function of providing public services fromthat of purchasing them” (Pollitt, 1995: 134), is further characterized as separating functions
into “quasi-contractual or quasi-market forms” (Dunleavy and Hood, 1994: 9). The quasicontractual form represents a tool for defining the relationship between the purchaser of services(policy-maker) and the provider of them (policy implementation organization), while the quasimarket form denotes the modified market in which only a single provider of public services
exists.
Introducing greater competition, Hood’s fifth principle, refers to increased competition in
the provision of services, both between public sector organizations and between public sector
organizations and the private sector (Hood, 1995b: 97; Kaboolian, 1998: 190). Traditionallyorganized and managed public services tend to be monopolies and are indefinitely assigned toparticular service providers. NPM, however, aims to introduce a more competitive style into
the public sector and to establish “internal markets” (Walsh, 1995: 26-27, 138-139), as well as
to loosen the inefficient monopoly franchise through the use of multiple competing providers
and term contracts which set out the performance required of service providers. This concept ofcompetition can also be applied to human resource management, such as the hiring of staff onterm contracts.
IIPS 2003 ◆ 5

Hiromi Yamamoto

Introducing competition can help achieve parsimony in resource use, as mentioned in thelast principle on Hood’s list, and also improve the quality of public services, which is essentialfrom the point of view of responsiveness to the citizen’s demands. As Dunleavy and Hood
(1994: 9) demonstrate, opening up competition to multiple providers allows citizens (ascustomers or users) more scope to “exit” from one provider to another, just as in a commercial
market, rather than forcing them to rely on “voice” options as a means of expressing how
public service provision affects them.
Although it is not clearly indicated in Hood’s list (1991: 4-5; 1995b: 96) (although it ispremised), NPM definitely encompasses the principle of customer-orientation, or what Pollitt(1995: 134) calls “customer responsiveness.” Traditional public administration regards citizens
as service receivers who are unilaterally given limited choices by government, whereas NPM
regards citizens as customers who have multiple choices, similar to the alternatives available inany market. The NPM principle of customer-orientation involves an increasing emphasis on
improving the quality of services, setting standards for quality, and responding to customers’
priorities.

Analytical Theories of NPM
NPM has two main sources (Hibbs, 1987: 107-192, 258-289; Mueller, 1989: 277-285). Hood
(1991: 5) describes NPM as originating from “a marriage of two different streams of ideas.”
One partner is the “new institutional economics” (Downs, 1967; Niskanen, 1971; Williamson,
1975, 1985), built on public choice theory (Buchanan and Tullock, 1962; Downs, 1957, 1967;
Mueller, 1979; Niskanen, 1971; Olsen, 1965; Tullock, 1965), principal-agent theory (Arrow,
1963; Moe, 1989), and transaction-cost theory (Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1975), which views
politics as a market phenomenon (Foster and Plowden, 1996: 1). The other partner in the“marriage” is “managerialism,” whose ideas concerning public sector reforms emanate fromprivate sector or business administration (Aucoin, 1990; Hume, 1981; Merkle, 1980; Pollitt,1993). Aucoin (1990: 115-116)—who did not yet use the term NPM—also argued thatadministrative reform in public management is based on two fields of discourse or paradigms,
known as “public choice” and “managerialism.”
In short, NPM is the fusion of contractual elements in the field of new institutional
economics—such as the principles of measuring performance and introducing competition as
described in Hood’s list (1991: 4-5; 1995b: 96)—and of management by objective in the fieldof business administration—such as discretion for organizational management as also describedin Hood’s list (1991: 4-5; 1995b: 96). The former is described as “making managers manage,”and the latter as “letting managers manage” (Hood, 1991: 6; Kettl, 1994; OECD, 1995: 8).
Thus, NPM unites the new institutional economics and managerialism from business
management thought; the strategy of NPM should thus be one of a balanced effort involving
both the use of contractual arrangements as a tool of output controls, and managerial freedom.

6 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

Critiques of NPM
A range of critiques of NPM have been made. NPM is criticized for ignoring the fact thatpublic management differs from private management in its essential nature. Schick (1996: 2526) argues that NPM would narrow the responsibilities of the public sector and weaken collective
values and interests, even though the responsibilities of government organizations are considered
to be broad because of their strong influence on society.
On the other hand, Metcalfe (1998: 3) insists that public management is rarely the task of asingle organization, but one that involves inter-organizational cooperation and coordination
among different levels of government or among networks including businesses, independent
consulting organizations, voluntary associations, lobbying organizations, and other not-forprofit organizations. In business management on the other hand, it is competition (between
organizations) that is regarded as the key to success. Metcalfe (1998: 3) also suggests that a
prominent feature of government is organizational diversity; agencies come in various shapes
and sizes, and have multifarious functions, so that general statements about performance need
to be qualified with reference to organizational differences. Admitting a role for the imitationof business practice, Metcalfe (1998: 2-3) demonstrates that public management must meet thechallenge to innovate, in order to respond more flexibly to organizational diversity according
to diverse criteria of effectiveness. Otherwise, for example, in meeting the objectives of thebusiness “bottom line,” schools might exclude under-achieving pupils or hospitals might put
obstacles in the way of the admission of unprofitable patients (Metcalfe, 1998: 3).
In relation to the difference in essence between public and private management, NPM has
been criticized as eroding the traditionally respected values and ethics of civil servants, such as
fairness, equality, probity, and impartiality, on which public administration has been based(Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000: 550; Schick, 1996: 25-26). Schick (1996: 25-26) underscores
the problem of scant loyalty to the broader values of public service. This problem has arisen
because NPM is based on output controls and discretionary management—in imitation of private
sector management—rather than on rule-based systems or on any requirement for open
procedures and processes. Under NPM, individuals’ ethical standards are the only safeguard.
Although a decline in values and ethical standards would be extremely difficult to measureand forestall, widespread public concerns over these problems can be dealt with by government
intervention. Dawson and Dargie (2002: 40) offer various examples, such as the foundation of
The Committee on Standards in Public Life1 in the UK in 1994, which examines concerns
about standards of conduct for all holders of public office and makes recommendations onchanges to existing arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards ofpropriety in public life. The National Clinical Assessment Authority (NCAA) was establishedin the UK in 2001 with the aims of providing a service in support of the primary care of the
National Health Service (NHS) and of establishing trust between hospitals and the community.
When confronted with concerns about the performance of an individual doctor, the NCAA also
provides support to the doctor.2 The background to this is that the practices of medical doctors
tend to lack transparency because, as Broadbent and Laughlin (2002: 95) argue, doctors have

IIPS 2003 ◆ 7

Hiromi Yamamoto

relative autonomy over their working practices and often enjoy a great deal of status which
gives them power over other stakeholder groups. Further examples are the codes of governancefor publicly funded organizations which have already been published in several countries.
DeLeon and Green (2001: 621) argue that the lessening of rules and increased flexibility willlead to administrative corruption because precise application of private sector management
will not always work well in the public sector. In the public sector, external political forces
influence internal systems of management; for example, performance evaluation could be beset
by a series of political compromises, and likewise any sense of accountability is geared towards
politics rather than management (deLeon and Green, 2001: 627). Thus, performancemeasurement and accountability might be much less effective as tools for output controls in the
public sector.
The problem of a decline in civil servants’ values and ethics under NPM is considered to be
dependent on how the balance between managerial freedom and output controls is achieved(see deLeon and Green, 2001: 621). In addition to the creation of suitable systems for balancing
these two elements, civil servants’ values and ethics must be maintained through improvements
to the organizational culture (Peters and Waterman, 1982) and through education.
In addition, NPM is criticized as making little commitment to democratic forms. DeLeon
and deLeon (2002: 239) discuss the problem that, under the thrust of reinvention, workplacedemocracy in the public sector has been developed less than entrepreneurship and technocracy.
In addition, many scholars suggest the problem of government’s relationship with civil society.
Metcalfe (1998: 10-11) criticizes NPM for paying little attention to the involvement of citizens,and regarding the users of public services simply as clients or customers rather than as membersof democratic states. DeLeon and Denhardt (2000: 89) point out that Osborne and Gaebler’s(1992) Reinventing Government offers little discussion of citizen participation. Denhardt and
Denhardt (2000: 549) suggest figuratively that the owner of the boat (whether steered or rowed)
is forgotten. All these arguments indicate a problem with the people as “citizens”—one of
Mintzberg’s (1996: 76-77) four types of relationship between citizens and their government: ascustomers, clients, citizens, and subjects. In addition, NPM does not take account of thegovernment’s relationship with the people as “subjects.”
Under NPM, it is intended that citizens participate in the process of evaluating public services,since the NPM principle of “customer responsiveness” (Pollitt, 1995: 134) requires that thedegree of user satisfaction with public services be measured. If the results of user evaluation
feed back to the policy-making process, it can be said that citizens have been brought into thepolicy-making process indirectly. However, this is a rather passive form of citizen participation.
A more active form of citizen participation has been seen in the UK, where the Blair Government
has placed user or citizen representatives in active decision-making roles. For example, theNational Health Service (NHS) has appointed new local patient representatives to draw attention
to issues such as dirty hospital wards, and there are to be patient representatives on manynational decision-making bodies (Dawson and Dargie, 2002: 37). Denhardt and Denhardt (2000:
549, 552-557) propose as an alternative what they call “New Public Service,” suggesting thatthe primary role of public servants is to help citizens articulate and meet their shared interest

8 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practicerather than to attempt to steer society. As Kettl (2000: 5) demonstrates, the main goal of the
public sector reform movement is to attempt to solve the problems inherent in government’s
relationship with civil society.
Furthermore, NPM is criticized for focusing on managerial reforms—whose goal is the pursuitof efficiency and economy within the constraints of pre-determined policy and resources—atthe expense of policy issues, and for separating managers and front-line workers from thepolicy process, as described in the UK White Paper Modernising Government3 (Cabinet Office,
1999: paras. 4 and 5). Osborne and Gaebler (1992: 32) insist that “those who steer the boat
have far more power over its destination than those who row it,” but the focus of their discussion
is on the issues relating to rowing (service delivery), not steering (policy decisions). To put it
another way, NPM focuses on the individual achievements of managerial reforms rather thanon any contribution to an overall strategic purpose (Cabinet Office, 1999: paras. 4 and 5).
Metcalfe (1998: 5-6) argues that NPM, especially the institutional separation of policy
implementation from policy-making (or agencification), seeks to revive the policy-administration
dichotomy by drawing a clear line between management and policy, and that this dichotomy
provides an incomplete picture of the whole management-governance process. In this case,governance is the sphere of setting policy through maintaining political support and securingresources. Although various attempts have been made to strengthen the linkage between policymaking and implementation, more comprehensive strategies and entrepreneurial policies must
be shaped through direct interaction between management and governance.
A final major criticism is that NPM is a self-serving movement designed to promote thecareer interests of an elite group of bureaucrats (top managers and officials in central controlling
departments/ministries, management consultancies, and business schools) rather than those of
the mass of low-level civil servants (Hood, 1991: 9; Pollitt, 1993: 134-137). DeLeon and deLeon(2002: 241) indicate that NPM focuses on allowing more managerial discretion (in particular,
over hiring, job assignments, and firing) rather than on greater autonomy for workers or on
more widely shared leadership. The suggested remedies are disproportionate cutbacks on
managerial staff rather than on operational staff (Hood, 1991: 9), and the promotion of workplacedemocracy (deLeon and deLeon, 2002: 240).

IIPS 2003 ◆ 9

Hiromi Yamamoto

NPM as Global Paradigm?
There have been arguments as to whether or not NPM is a global paradigm for public sector
reform. Successive OECD studies (1990, 1993, 1995, 1997) insist that it is globally convergent.
The OECD (1995: 25) describes changing trends in the public sector as follows:
OECD countries’ reform strategies have many points in common. They are aimed atboth improving the performance of the public sector and redefining its role in theeconomy. Key reform thrusts are: a greater focus on results and increased value formoney, devolution of authority and enhanced flexibility, strengthened accountability
and control, a client- and service-orientation, ... and changed relationships with otherlevels of government. (Emphasis by the author)

NPM principles correspond to these trends; therefore, NPM principles are in keeping with thereform strategies which are common to OECD countries. Also, Kettl (2000: 1) demonstrates
that the movement towards NPM “has been striking because of the number of nations that havetaken up the reform agenda in such a short time and because of how similar their basic strategies
have been.”
On the other hand, Kickert (1997: 731-732) insists that NPM is a more nation-specific andAnglo-Saxon Commonwealth phenomenon (with New Zealand as the most extreme example),whereas the United States is the motherland of business management. Hood (1995b: 98), who
has taken a negative stance towards NPM as a “global paradigm” (1995a: 110), also demonstrates
that not all OECD countries have adopted NPM principles to the same extent. He cites Japan,
the United States, Germany, and Switzerland as examples of countries whose governments
seem to have put much less emphasis on adopting NPM-type reforms in the 1980s than those ofcountries such as the UK and New Zealand. Pollitt (2002: 277) points out that one of thereasons for this variation is that different countries started from different points in terms of the
make-up of their public sectors and in the ways in which they thought about the role andcharacter of the state. He also notes that different governments do not all possess the same
capacity to implement reforms; for example, in Germany it is very difficult, politically andlegally, to change the central administrative structure.
As Pollitt (2002: 278) demonstrates, there could be convergence in discussion of the emergenceof NPM as a dominant paradigm and in government decisions to implement reforms with aview to business-like management, market-like competition, and client-orientation; however,less convergence might be seen in the actual carrying out of reforms and in the results thereof.
In spite of the above arguments, NPM has continued to provide “a kind of shopping basket for
those who wish to modernize the public sector” (Pollitt, 1995: 133).

10 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

Public Sector Reforms in Post-War Japan
During the post-war period, Japan has undergone three major public sector reforms in central
government. The first two of these were overseen respectively by the First Provisional
Commission for Administrative Reform (FPCAR) in 1962-64, which used lessons learnt fromthe American Hoover Commission, and the Second Provisional Commission for Administrative
Reform (SPCAR) in 1981-83, which proposed the goal of “medium-sized government” forJapan (Muramatsu, 2001: 77) and which privatized large public corporations. Finally, Prime
Minister Hashimoto (11 January 1996-30 July 1998) initiated public sector reforms which were
implemented in January 2001 and which represented the largest reorganization of central
government since the war.
Throughout these processes, the unification and abolition of organizations, based on theprinciples of streamlining and efficiency, have been the preferred public sector reforms in Japan.
For example, the major initiative carried out by Prime Minister Nakasone (27 November 19826 November 1987) was the privatization of large public corporations under the Second
Provisional Commission for Administrative Reform, including the Japanese National Railways,
the Japan Tobacco & Salt Public Corporation, and the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Public
Corporation. Prime Minister Hashimoto’s reforms reorganized 23 ministries into 13, thereby
reducing the number of ministries and thus the number of cabinet members. The unification
and abolition of organizations are reforms which are both visible to, and easily understood by,
the people. Politicians tend to prefer those reforms which are considered likely to haveconsiderable political impact on constituents.
In addition, in order to apply strict controls to the number of civil service employees, theNational Public Service Law was established in the late 1960s, and, from time to time, various
plans have been adopted by the central government for annually reducing the national percentage
of civil service employees within set periods. The first of these plans was drawn up for theperiod 1968-71. The tenth and most recent plan, announced in January 1999 by the Obuchi
Government (30 July, 1998-5 April 2000) which succeeded the Hashimoto Government, wasdesigned to accelerate Hashimoto’s public sector reform of streamlining the central government
and to accomplish a net reduction in national civil service staff of 25 percent over the decade
starting in fiscal year 2000. Although the ratio of civil service employees to the general populationin Japan is already lower than that in other major industrialized countries, cutting the numberof civil service employees is also preferred as a method of making government streamlined andefficient, because of its popular political appeal. Shiroyama (2002: 10) indicates that theseplans to reduce the size of the civil service have been carried out “without sufficient theoreticalbasis”; however, size reduction and streamlining have been typical methods of central
government reform in Japan.

IIPS 2003 ◆ 11

Hiromi Yamamoto

Origins of NPM Reform in Japan
Hashimoto’s public sector reform initiatives were proposed at a time when the “policy window,”
as Kingdon (1984, 1995) called it, was open. Kingdon’s (1984, 1995) model focuses on the
pre-decisional phase of policy-making; at the time various incidents and problems caused bybureaucrats had captured the attention of the general public and the media. The problems caused
by officials at the Ministry of Finance were known to the public in the mid-1990s: these included
the injection of a huge amount of public money to underwrite bad loans made by private financecompanies in the housing sector (jusen), the suppression of information from the US Federal
Reserve Board (FRB) regarding $11 billion in losses at the New York branch of Daiwa Bank
caused by a single bond dealer, and several bribery scandals. In addition, a senior official of the
Ministry of Health and Welfare was arrested in 1996 because the ministry had for years takenno action to prevent the use of “unheated” blood derivatives, in spite of fears that patients could
be infected with HIV by these derivatives. These problems caused by bureaucrats resulted in aloss of public esteem for administrative organs. Furthermore, Japan had been experiencing asevere economic downturn since the beginning of the 1990s; as a result, the government was
facing a large financial deficit and by 1995 the ratio of government bonds to GDP had reachednearly 45 percent. Under these conditions public policies to stimulate the economy while reducing
the size of the public sector were urgently required. Bureaucratic problems only served tohighlight these conditions, if not exacerbate them.
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has dominated Japanese post-war politics and held
power continuously, except for during the periods 1950-1954 and 1993-1994. In the mid-1990s
the LDP regained power in a coalition with the Japan Socialist Party (JSP) and a new party
named Sakigake which had split from the LDP in the early 1990s. At the time, JSP chairman
Murayama became Prime Minister. Prime Minister Hashimoto of the LDP succeeded Murayama
when the latter resigned on 11 January 1996, and was able to become what Kingdon (1995)
calls a “policy entrepreneur” in the field of public sector reform. Hashimoto had been exposed
to public sector reform on several occasions in his life as a politician, for example, while hewas president of the LDP’s Research Council for Administration and Finance during the era of
the Second Provisional Commission for Administrative Reform (SPCAR) in 1981-83.
With relatively strong public support for the First Hashimoto Government4 (11 January 19967 November 1996), Hashimoto dissolved the House of Representatives in September 1996 andcalled a general election, in a bid to strengthen the political foundation of his government. The
issue of public sector reform was the center of public attention during the general election of
October 1996, as the national mood was one of severe criticism of bureaucrats. For the coalition
parties, the election resulted in gains for the LDP and serious losses for the JSP and Sakigake.
Hashimoto was able to form the Second Hashimoto Government (7 November 1996-30 July
1998) using members of his own party; this was analogous to what Kingdon (1995: 140) calls
the “take-off point” for extensive public sector reform in Japan. With more political power in
his second government, Hashimoto immediately established the Council for Public Sector
Reforms5 (hereafter the Council) on 21 November 1996—only two weeks after forming his
second government—with the Prime Minister himself as Chairman. This was unusual becausesuch councils were in general advisory organs for Prime Ministers.
12 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

Hashimoto does not have a reputation as a politician who expresses his vision of the nation’s
future in strong ideological terms; rather, he is perceived as a skillful practitioner (Masujima,
1998: 33) and often described as “more bureaucratic than the bureaucrats.”6 These characteristics
were reflected in his speech at the annual conference of the Research Institute of Japan on 1
October 1996, and demonstrated that Hashimoto’s emphasis was neither on any ideology nor
on his vision of the nation’s future, but on methods and techniques of reform.
..... regarding current politics, I believe that the former confrontations in ideology or
philosophy, such as liberalism versus socialism or liberty versus equality, are alreadythings of the past. In addition, the opposing axes, such as big government versus small,or hawk versus dove, are abstract or ideological confrontations which do not takereality into consideration; in other words, these types of confrontation are merely
artificial axes for generating confrontation. [Therefore, confrontation between parties
in an election campaign is not inevitable.]
A more important issue, I believe, is how to carry out reform of our country and themethods which should be used to realize this..... (Parentheses added by the author)

In addition, he is regarded as an authority on public policy (Tanaka, 2000: 18). This is because
he has had considerable experience in practical matters—as a minister he worked withbureaucrats four times altogether: at the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, the Ministryof Finance, the Ministry of Transport, and the Ministry of Health and Welfare.
The year-long Council’s meetings, which began on 21 November 1996, discussed the overallreorganization of central government and eventually published its Final Report on 3 December
1997. This reform program did encompass some NPM principles; however, the application of
NPM principles to Japan’s central government was limited to two fields: policy evaluation forministries in the central government; and agencification as a means of disaggregation/
decentralization in order to separate the policy implementation function from the policy-making
function.

IIPS 2003 ◆ 13

Hiromi Yamamoto

NPM Application (1) — Policy Evaluation
Whereas local governments had implemented and developed methods of performancemeasurement since the mid-1990s, policy evaluation had rarely been implemented in the central
government in Japan. The Council for Public Sector Reforms published an Interim Report in
September 1997, which suggested the introduction of performance measurement into theadministrative processes of every government organ. Then, the Council’s Final Report in
December 1997 recommended strengthening the evaluation of policy ex ante and ex post,
reflecting the results of the evaluation in the policy planning function, and establishing a clearly
distinguished evaluation section in every government organ. Later, in June 2001, the Government
Policy Evaluation Act (GPEA) was established. This act came into force in April 2002.
Kingdon (1995: 143) argues that the chances of a problem rising on the agenda are dramaticallyincreased if a solution is attached. In Japan’s case, a solution had been demonstrated by theGovernment Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of the US federal government, which wasenacted in 1993 under the Clinton Administration. Japan’s GPEA has similarities to the US
GPRA, on which it was modeled, including the requirement that every government organ
implement performance measurement, the disclosure of reports describing the results ofperformance measurement, and the maximal use of quantitative standards in performancemeasurement. On the other hand, Japan’s GPEA does differ from the GPRA of the USA insome crucial aspects.
In the USA, the GPRA (Section 3) requires each government organ to submit to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) and to Congress a “strategic plan” for program activities
covering a period of three to five years, which should contain a comprehensive mission statement,
and general goals and objectives. The GPRA (Section 4) also requires the preparation of an“annual performance plan” covering each program activity, which should establish “performancegoals” to be achieved by the program activities, express such goals in an objective, quantifiable,
and measurable form, and establish the “performance indicators” to be used in measuring or
assessing the relevant output, service levels, and outcomes of each program activity. Program
performance reports should be submitted to the President and Congress (Section 4, GPRA),
which evaluates the annual performance plan. In addition, the OMB has designated somegovernment organs as pilot projects in “performance budgeting” in an attempt to link performancemeasurement and budget appropriations (Section 6, GPRA). While introducing performancemeasurement, the performance plans may also include proposals to waive administrative
procedural requirements and controls, including specification of personnel staffing levels,
limitations on remuneration, and prohibitions or restrictions on funding transfers among budget
object classification (Section 5, GPRA). Pilot projects have been conducted to test the effects
on performance of greater managerial and organizational flexibility, discretion, and authority.
On the other side of the coin, in Japan there is no single OMB-type ministry in charge ofperformance budgeting; in addition, the GPEA does not require budget appropriations or requirethat performance measurement be reflected. In Japan, budget appropriations and performancemeasurement are exercised by two different ministries: the Ministry of Finance (MOF) is

14 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practiceresponsible for budget appropriations and the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs,
Post and Telecommunications (MPHPT) is in charge of overall management of the policy
evaluation system, which is based on the GPEA. The MPHPT was created at the time ofHashimoto’s reorganization of the overall central government by a merger of three existing but
separate ministries. The MPHPT and the MOF do not always communicate with each othervery well; moreover, within the ministerial hierarchy the MPHPT is less powerful than the
MOF. In the light of this situation, it is clearly unlikely that the results of policy evaluation
would be effectively reflected in budget appropriations.
Japan’s GPEA assumes that, in general, each government organ will implement policy
evaluation itself by establishing its own policy evaluation section. This is set out as follows:“[E]very organization of the national government shall evaluate, plan and develop its own
policies by itself” (Sub-Section 2 of Section 2, National Government Organizational Law).
This implies that Japan’s GPEA basically allows each government organ to decide on programs
and areas for performance measurement (Paragraph 1 of Sub-Section 2 of Section 7, GPEA),
and establish its own performance measurement system (Section 6, GPEA). In contrast, the
GPRA in the USA requires that the performance of each program be measured and defines how
performance measurement is to be implemented. In Japan, the Standard Guidelines for Policy
Evaluation (hereafter the Guidelines)7 set out the items subject to evaluation by each ministry
as follows:(i) a new item that it is planning to carry out;(ii) a project that has not been started or completed after the passage of a certain
period of time;(iii) a newly implemented system or the like that has been in operation for a certain
period of time;(iv) an item that needs to be reviewed due to a sudden change in social conditions.

The above does not provide any details; thus, each ministry is basically allowed to decide itself
which areas and policy items it will evaluate. This may result in a situation in which ministries
will not include specific policy areas for evaluation if there are likely to be technical difficulties
in quantifying and measuring performance, or if a ministry foresees certain problems. In addition,
the Guidelines state that the criteria for evaluation should include necessity, efficiency,
effectiveness, fairness, and priority, and that the evaluation method should be essentiallyquantitative, using specific indices and numbers as much as possible. As the GPRA in the USA
requires, all programs need to be evaluated under a unified evaluation standard, so as to linkprogram performance to budget appropriations. However, Japan’s system of self-evaluation byeach government organ may make it almost impossible to link program performance to budget
appropriations.
With respect to each ministry’s self-evaluation system, Japan’s GPEA requires neither thateach government organ state a comprehensive mission and general goals, nor that performancegoals be established; rather, these are matters that are left up to each individual governmentorgan. In addition, the GPEA requires each government organ to draw up a “basic plan forpolicy evaluation” covering a period of three to five years (Sub-Section 1 of Section 6, GPEA)IIPS 2003 ◆ 15

Hiromi Yamamoto

and an “operational plan” for conducting evaluation each year (Sub-Section 1 of Section 7,
GPEA); both of these are policy evaluation plans (not plans for individual government organs)
and are thus completely different from the strategic plan and annual performance plan of the
US GPRA. Whereas the US GPRA adopts a logical cycle for program performance measurement,
based on essential elements such as mission statement, performance goals, and performanceindicators, Japan’s GPEA lacks any requirement for such indispensable performancemeasurement elements.
Furthermore, the US GPRA uses Congress to put in place both pre- and post-control systems,by requiring each government organ to consult with Congress in developing a strategic plan, to
submit it to OMB and to Congress (Section 3, GPRA), and to submit program performance
reports to the President and Congress (Section 4, GPRA). On the other hand, Japan’s GPEA
(Section 19) requires the government to submit a report on the status of policy evaluation to theDiet; thus the Diet is used only as a means of putting in place a post-control system. Thus, as
already stated, the US GPRA introduces strong control and monitoring systems, while trying togive government organs greater managerial and organizational flexibility, discretion, andauthority (Section 5, GPRA). This is consistent with NPM in that it complements managerialism’s
devolution of authority and provision of flexibility with the stringent accountability for
performance (through target-setting, strengthened reporting, and contractual arrangement) of
the new institutional economics. All of this is lacking in Japan’s GPEA.
On the other hand, Japan’s GPEA does require two levels of evaluation by third parties,
namely the MPHPT and the Commission on Policy Evaluation and Evaluation of Independent
Administrative Institutions (hereafter the Commission). The US GPRA does not requireevaluation by any such third-party commission. In addition to each ministry’s self-evaluation,
the MPHPT carries out third-party policy evaluation, including evaluation of policies which
need to be evaluated throughout government offices in a cross-sectional manner from thestandpoint of the entire government, and policies which encompass several government offices
and need to be evaluated in such a way as to promote progress in a comprehensive fashion(Sub-Section 1 of Section 12, GPRA). The Commission, the other third party, is comprised ofexternal experts and is responsible for ensuring that the MPHPT’s policy evaluations are
conducted in a fair and neutral manner.
Although third-party policy evaluation by the Commission might seem to be stricter than theevaluation carried out under the US system, there are various problems with the Commission’s
evaluation, such as the fact that its members are part-time and thus may not devote sufficient
time to it. In addition, there are not enough experts with skill and experience in policy evaluationin Japan, as policy evaluation has rarely been implemented in central government in Japan.
Evidence of this problem is revealed in the GPEA (Section 20) as follows:
The Government shall promote studies on methods of policy evaluation etc., and takenecessary measures, including training to ensure the acquisition of capable personnel
as policy evaluation staff and the enhancement of staff capabilities.

Accordingly, Japan has introduced some policy evaluation systems as a method of applying
NPM to its existing systems; however, the application of NPM principles has been rather limited.
16 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

NPM Application (2) — Agencification
Agencification as disaggregation/decentralization is the other area in which NPM principles
have been introduced in Japan. Agencification refers to a reform method in the central governmentthat is designed to create, within the public sector, autonomous or semi-autonomous organizations
in which the implementation function is separated from the policy-making function. The aimof such reform is to improve the efficiency and quality of the public services which are provided
by these policy implementation organizations for citizens and the government.8
The introduction of agencification had already been suggested in the LDP pledge (1996: 99100) for the 1996 general election—called the “Hashimoto Vision”—as a specific model for
public sector reform. The LDP was the only major political party to commit itself to introducing
agencification during the 1996 general election campaign, when the issue of public sector reform
was at the center of public attention due to a series of bureaucratic scandals. The resulting LDP
gains brought to power the Second Hashimoto Government, with a single-party cabinet which
was stronger than the coalition’s had been.
From its early discussions, Council meetings under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister
often cited Britain as an example of agencification. Thus, Japan’s agencification was primarily
modeled on that of the UK. However, the thinking behind Japan’s agencification was essentiallydifferent from the thinking behind agencification in the UK. To cite a prime example, whereas
the UK’s agencification was defined as “management reform in the civil service”, according toPrime Minister Thatcher’s statement (HC Deb., Vol. 127, cols. 1149-56), Prime Minister
Hashimoto defined agencification as streamlining the government.
In the UK, the original draft of The Next Steps (Efficiency Unit, 1988) on agencification
postulated the use of agencies outside the government in order to cut back on the core civil
service (Drewry, 1988: 506; Zifcak, 1994: 71). However, Thatcher subsequently opted to retain
agencies as part of government. The reason for this change was that Thatcher was wary of thepossibility of stiff resistance from the civil service labor unions and wanted to avoid the risk offailing to put agencification into practice at all. Although Thatcher’s policies have often been
analyzed as stemming from a New Right ideology and/or the influence of public choice theory(Rhodes, 1997: 49, 174), this decision was not consistent with either; rather, it may well haveresulted from Thatcher’s characteristic tendency to make pragmatic decisions, as Campbell
and Wilson (1995: 245-246) and Gamble (1988: ch. 5) argue. As a result, agencification in the
UK concentrated on management reform. In Japan, on the other hand, although the LDP’s
election pledge (1996: 99-100) assumed that policy implementation functions would remain
within the government (as in the case of the UK’s Executive Agencies), organizations that werelegally separate from the central government, known as Independent Administrative Institutions(IAIs), were established to perform the policy implementation function.
Hashimoto had generally viewed public sector reforms as a means of streamlining thegovernment and pursuing efficiency. Prior to taking office, Hashimoto (1994: 169-173) wroteof having participated in a fact-finding trip to the UK to study public sector reforms and ofobserving Rayner’s “efficiency strategy,” which had examined government policies, activities
and functions with a view to making savings and increasing effectiveness, and which had
IIPS 2003 ◆ 17

Hiromi Yamamotoquestioned all aspects of the work carried out in the early stages of the Thatcher Government.
In discussion in his book of the reforms under the Second Provisional Commission for
Administrative Reform (SPCAR) of Japan during the period 1981-83, Hashimoto explained
the purposes of Thatcher’s reforms as being “streamlining and efficiency,” and described how
government costs had been cut in the UK. The words “streamlining” and “efficiency” wererepeated in Hashimoto’s speeches9 on the forthcoming public sector reforms in his government.
In addition, in July 1996, during the First Hashimoto Government, Hashimoto announced theninth plan, which was intended to cut the total number of civil service employees by about 4.5
percent between fiscal 1997 and fiscal 2001. In this way, Hashimoto preserved traditional
Japanese public sector reform methods.
As Council member Prof. Fujita (1999: 110-113) states, since one focus of Hashimoto’s
reform was the streamlining of the central government, the legal separation of the IAIs fromthe central government—so as to enable the number of civil service employees in the central
government to be cut—was indispensable. Accordingly, the Council’s Final Report (1997) set
down the establishment of IAIs in the section on “streamlining/outsourcing and efficiency.”
However, in order to take account of possible resistance from the civil service labor unions,
two types of status were established for IAI employees: civil-service-type and non-civil-servicetype. IAI employees of civil-service-type enjoy civil service status and guaranteed employment.
Hashimoto himself never defined agencification as management reform; in addition, theissue of management reform was rarely discussed in the context of agencification, either
throughout the year-long series of Council meetings or during deliberation in the Diet. One
reason for the lack of a management approach at Council meetings may lie in the fact that theCouncil did not include any specialists from the fields of either public administration or
management. Instead, two members of the legal profession (experts in the areas of constitutionallaw and administrative law) were asked by Hashimoto to lead Council discussions (24th Council
meeting on 18 August 1997). This exemplified the strategy of Hashimoto, the skillful practitioner(Masujima, 1998: 33), for setting up a fundamental legal framework during his tenure of office.
He believed that if he did otherwise, he might fail to carry out his reform plan.
This legalistic approach resulted in the Council spending considerable time on discussion ofwhether IAIs were legally inside or outside the ministries responsible, and of which functions
would be candidate functions for IAIs. Policy implementation functions that involved the“exercise of compulsory authority over citizens”—such as social insurance, issuing of patents,
registration and deposition—were entirely excluded as IAI candidates. As a result, in Japanagencification was applied in a relatively limited fashion, encompassing only about 2.2 percentof the civil service. By contrast, agencification in the UK started out with relatively “easyones” (TCSC, 1987/88, HC494-I, Q14), in the sense that it was not difficult to measure theirperformance and in the sense that some of them were engaged in quasi-commercial activities.
After the announcement of the first 12 candidates in 1988, their numbers were expanded without
the adoption of any standard means of candidate selection. This factor, coupled to the fact thatagencies remained within departments, allowed agencification in the UK to proceed easily. In
addition, Executive Agencies in the UK performed functions that were excluded from IAI
candidacy in Japan.

18 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

Despite the lack of a managerialism perspective at the Council’s discussions, it should be
noted that Japan’s agencification has inevitably introduced certain NPM principles at the IAI
system design stage. The NPM principle of freedom to manage, as a counterpart to output
controls, has been introduced into the IAI systems in terms of personnel management, specificallyin terms of a Chief Executive’s right to exercise his discretion in deciding the number of
employees, employee promotion and employee pay within the limitations of the resources
allocated under the mid-term operational plan (Final Report, 1997). In addition, as a further
counterpart to output controls, IAIs are given flexibility in financial management, a freedomthat is denied to central government ministries. For example, the Final Report (1997) decrees
that, in principle, IAIs should use business-style accrual accounting (implying a transition fromcash accounting), whereas central government does not. IAI budgets are divided into operating
and capital expenditures. IAIs’ operating expenditure, which covers personnel expenses, isregarded as a “block grant”—the purposes for which the money is spent need not be specified(Cabinet Decision, 27 April 1999). The internal reservation and carry-over of operating
expenditure are acceptable within the framework determined by mid-term operational plans,
provided that cost savings are made (Section 44, Law of General Rules). Furthermore, theNPM principle of management by objective is introduced as a defined IAI mid-term objective
which the IAI must achieve during a term of three to five years, as determined by the Minister(Section 29, Law of General Rules). According to the Cabinet Decision of 27 April 1999, midterm objectives are defined to be quantifiable as far as possible. The NPM principle of output
controls is introduced in the form of performance-based salaries (Sub-Section 1 of Section 57
and Sub-Section 1 of Section 63, Law of General Rules).
Thus, some NPM principles have been adopted within IAI systems; in practice, however,these systems have been changed during the implementation stage and have not functioned as
expected. In the area of personnel management for example, in practice it has not been the IAI
Chief Executives who have determined staffing numbers, since there exists a requirement thatthey report actual staffing numbers to the ministers responsible, who (in the case of civilservice-type IAIs) are in turn required to report annually to the Diet (Section 60, Law of theGeneral Rules). In addition, Chief Executives have not exercised their authority in making
decisions regarding employee promotion and pay, because employee promotion and pay arebound by the rules for national civil servants. In the case of civil-service-type IAIs, employees
have the status of national civil service employees and are thus covered by the National PublicService Law (Section 51, Law of the General Rules). At the start of agencification in April
2001, only four out of 57 IAIs were designated as being of non-civil-service type; most IAIspreserved the seniority system for salaries rather than abide by their Chief Executive’s decision.
Thus, although it was initially intended that, under the Japanese system, authority over staff
matters would be delegated to Chief Executives, in practice Chief Executives have not beenable to exercise their authority and discretion in these matters.
As for the recruitment of IAI top management, the Council’s Final Report (1997) decreedthat selection of candidates for Chief Executive posts would be open to the public. At thedesign stage, however, it was stipulated that, to be qualified for the post of IAI Chief Executive,
a candidate must possess in-depth knowledge and considerable experience relating to the

IIPS 2003 ◆ 19

Hiromi Yamamoto

undertakings and operations of the IAI (Paragraph 1 of Sub-Section 1 of Section 20, Law of theGeneral Rules). This clause was criticized because it assumed that Chief Executives would be
drawn from the ranks of senior bureaucrats and former senior bureaucrats at the ministries
responsible—that is, they would be the products of what is known in Japanese as amakudari or“descent from heaven” (Mizuno, 2001: 74-75). When agencification began in 2001, 50 of thefirst 57 Chief Executives were the products of amakudari and there were no cases of recruitmentusing open competition.
In the UK by contrast, the Treasury and Civil Service Committee (TCSC) of Parliament(TCSC, 1987/88, HC494-I: para. 21) suggested that Chief Executives of Executive Agencies
be recruited from outside the civil service. The Government (1988, Cm524: 5) responded thatit agreed with the idea of injecting talent from outside and using open competition to fill these
posts. Support for this view was maintained after its implementation, and this recruiting system
has continued to be used. In 1997 nearly 67 percent of posts were filled using open competition;of these, about 34 percent were drawn from outside the civil service (Cabinet Office, 1998).
Describing agencification in the UK, Goldsworthy (1991: 28) wrote that Chief Executives
were required to exhibit many of the same qualities and skills that are required of the head of a
successful commercial business, including proven management ability and competence inbusiness.
The NPM principle of hands-on professional management skills (Hood, 1991: 4-5; 1995b:
96) anticipates that Chief Executives will be management experts from the private sector. Ideally,
Chief Executives will be recruited from the private sector and their management skills will thus
be brought into the public sector. In Japan, the large-scale overall reorganization of central
government which took place just before the start of agencification in 2001 resulted in a schedule
which was too tight to allow the preparatory procedures for open competition to be carried out.
It will be instructive to observe the recruitment process for the next generation of IAI Chief
Executives.
Financial management incurs the same problems as personnel management in terms of thelimits on an IAI’s management freedom in the implementation phase. Although an IAI’s operating
expenditure is regarded as a block grant, in practice an IAI’s discretion is limited to about 40
percent of operating costs. This is because, on average, nearly 60 percent of operating expendituremust be allocated to personnel expenses. In addition, IAIs are not permitted to switch operating
and capital expenditure, or to reserve or carry over capital expenditure as subsidies. Furthermore,
although in the early stages of system design a multi-year budget system for IAIs was envisaged(in the Cabinet Decision of January 26 1999), the Law of the General Rules (Section 36) stipulates
a single-year budget system. The Ministry of Finance was thought to oppose a multi-year budget
system because it was eager to retain its power over IAIs, just as it retained power over otherministries. Thus, although the IAI financial management systems were originally intended togive great autonomy and flexibility to IAIs, once again their freedom of management has been
limited in practice; thus, in the implementation phase, managerialism has been weakened.

20 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

From the point of view of the NPM principle of management by objective, the ministers
responsible for IAIs are supposed to set mid-term objectives (Section 29, Law of General Rules);however, according to the minutes of the IAI evaluation committee of the Ministry of Economy,
Trade, and Industry, the IAIs themselves set their own mid-term objectives at the start ofagencification. In this case the NPM principle of management by objective is not valid. In
addition, mid-term objectives are defined to be quantifiable as far as possible (Cabinet Decision,
27 April 1999); however, for the first 57 IAIs, only 277 out of a total of 2081 targets (13.3
percent) were numerical targets.
The evaluation system for IAIs is designed to be strict, in a similar fashion to the policy
evaluation system of central government ministries. The system requires an internal audit andan external audit by the Board of Audit regarding money from the government. This is similar
to the UK system. In addition, IAIs with capital of more than 10,000 million yen are under anobligation to be audited by outside professional auditors (Section 39, Law of General Rules).
This is not required for the UK’s Executive Agencies. Furthermore, Japan’s IAI performance
evaluation adopts a double-check system, whereby an IAI is evaluated twice: once by the ministryin charge and once by the Commission on Policy Evaluation and Evaluation of Independent
Administrative Institutions, which is comprised of external experts (Cabinet Decision, 27 April
1999). The system is designed to be stricter than the UK’s, which does not require performance
evaluation by a third-party commission. However, the problem in Japan is that there are notenough experts with the skills and experience required for performance evaluation (as was
mentioned in the discussion of policy evaluation), as performance evaluation had rarely been
implemented in the public sector. In addition, there were individuals who were members ofboth evaluation committees.
The IAI evaluation system is similar to the US program evaluation system (which is basedon the GPRA) in terms of the way in which mid-term objectives are set and achievements
evaluated-features lacking in Japan’s GPEA-based policy evaluation system for central
government ministries. In this sense, performance evaluation for IAIs, which are outside thecentral government (separate from the central government ministries), is stricter than policy
evaluation for central government ministries.

IIPS 2003 ◆ 21

Hiromi Yamamoto

Future Prospects for NPM Practice in Japan
Japan has adopted some NPM principles in the fields of policy evaluation and agencification.
However, in their implementation these systems have sometimes ignored NPM principles, as
has been discussed. Even assuming that NPM principles are effective in public sector reform,
the future prospects for the further expansion of NPM principles in the public sector are doubtful.
The reason lies in the negative attitudes of bureaucrats towards NPM. In particular, the National
Personnel Authority has a rather negative stance towards NPM, as indicated below (White
Paper, 2001).10
NPM is generally held to have been successful in terms of improved efficiency. However,
NPM may not be the perfect solution for the current problems in the public sector.
There has been criticism that it causes fresh problems and exerts a harmful influence.
For example, in the areas of medicine, social welfare, and education, priority is placedon cost-cutting and efficiency, the notions of service and skillful technique have been
largely downgraded, and cooperation between the parties involved has declined.
The problems arising from the introduction of NPM are as follows:-as a corollary to market-orientation, the scope of politics and government is narrowed;
this results in weaker democratic control overall;-excessive cost-consciousness results in a decline in the quality of public services;-the morale of the civil service declines, and this results in increased popular suspicionof government and the civil service; and-success in the marketplace is used as a justification for public policies; this leads toreduced accountability.

In addition, the National Personnel Authority (White Paper, 2001) states that NPM is said to
reduce the quality of the civil service; because NPM attempted to use money to motivate thecivil service, they lost their identity and their spirit of service to the public. The Ministry of
Finance will surely be opposed to any loosening of the regulations on budgets, just as the UK
Treasury was at the start of agencification (TCSC, 1987/88, HC494-II: 68, 73).
Public sector reform policy-making is usually difficult, as bureaucrats tend to be opposed toit. In Japan particularly, the framework of governmental systems is fundamentally defined bylaws, such as establishment laws for each government organ, for each IAI etc., as well as basic
laws and general rules, etc. (unlike the situation in the UK). As a result, bureaucrats are inevitably
required to be involved in the process of creating laws.
Taking these processes into account, Prime Minister Hashimoto excluded any former seniorbureaucrats from membership of the Council for Public Sector Reforms. Prior to establishing
the Council, he expressed this decision clearly at a press conference11 on the formation of the
new Cabinet of the Second Hashimoto Government on 7 November 1996. Previous deliberative
councils for public sector reform had usually featured former senior bureaucrats (who were
products of amakudari, such as executives in either public organizations or private enterprises)
who represented the interests of bureaucrats.12 In spite of the prospect of stiff bureaucratic
resistance to the reorganization and streamlining of government, Hashimoto was eager to at

22 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practiceleast create a fixed foundation for reorganizing the central government within the limited period
during which he would be in power. (At the time, the average tenure for a Prime Minister wasless than two years.13) Hashimoto’s strategy was to have two legal scholars take the lead in
Council discussion, draft the Council’s Interim Report, and draft the Council’s Final Report,
which was precisely crafted in legal terms and which, without significant alteration, became
the Basic Law on the Public Sector Reform of the Central Government in June 1998. This
owed much to Hashimoto’s skillful strategy and leadership (Masujima, 1998: 33). However,some original rules were still changed by bureaucrats in the process of creating the Law ofGeneral Rules in July 1999. These changes included the addition of the qualifications for IAI
Chief Executives (Paragraph 1 of Sub-Section 1 of Section 20, Law of General Rules) to allow
amakudari, and the removal of the multi-year budget system which had been stipulated, as
mentioned earlier, by the Cabinet Decision of 26 January 1999. This was replaced by a singleyear budget system by the Law of General Rules (Section 36).
Considering these facts, unless there is strong political commitment, the bureaucrats’ negative
view of NPM will present a strong barrier to the introduction of further NPM reforms in the
public sector in Japan.

IIPS 2003 ◆ 23

Hiromi Yamamoto

Conclusions
This paper has briefly reviewed NPM, examined the manner in which certain NPM reforms
have been adopted in Japan, and discussed the future prospects for NPM reforms in Japan’s
public sector.
In Japan NPM principles have only been applied to two fields: policy evaluation andagencification as disaggregation/decentralization. These systems were created using models
based on the examples of other countries: namely, the policy evaluation system of the US
GPRA and UK agencification. However, at the system design stage, not all of the other countries’
systems were introduced, and thus the original NPM principles were not always introduced
either; rather, Japan introduced other countries systems—and thus NPM principles—“selectively.”On the other hand, some of Japan’s systems were designed to be stricter than the original
foreign models. Examples of this are the double-check system of policy evaluation for ministries
and the system of IAI performance evaluation by a third party. Since these control and monitoring
systems are considered as originating from the new institutional economics, Hood’s (1995a:
110) insight that Japan places less stress on legalistic styles of administration using written
documents as a tool of output controls may not be true. However, in their implementation,
Japan’s systems were not always stricter than the original models from abroad, as these werechanged slightly in order to fit Japan’s culture and traditional institutional framework. As aresult, some Japanese customs—like amakudari—remained, while new systems—such as
evaluation systems based on NPM principles—were introduced. Thus, Japan’s NPM reforms
are unique among those of OECD countries.
In spite of this, Japan has not yet created its own model for NPM reforms. It may take sometime for Japan to establish a model that will suit Japan’s culture and traditional institutionalframework in the public sector. It will be instructive to see whether Japan’s existing systems
will function or not, and to see whether Japan can create its own model for NPM reforms.

24 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

Notes
1

<http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/>

2<http://www.ncaa.nhs.uk/about/background.htm>

3<http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/1999/whitepaper.htm>

4

According to a survey conducted by the Nihon Keizai Shimbun newspaper on January
13-14, the rate of confidence in the First Hashimoto Government was 54.3 percent,which was the second highest rate ever recorded up to that time.

5

The Japanese Government officially calls the group the “Administrative Reform
Council.”6

Editorial, “Hoping for a decisive Prime Minister with the power to revive Japan,”Nihon Keizai Shimbun newspaper, p. 2, July 14, 1998.

7<http://www.soumu.go.jp/english/kansatu/evaluation/evaluation_06.html>

8

Public services are assumed to be provided to the “[G]overnment, Parliament and the
public” (The Government reply to the Eighth Report from the TCSC, Cm524,
1988: 1).

9

These speeches included a presentation at the Japan Press Center on September 11,
1996, a press conference on the formation of the new cabinet for the second Hashimoto
government on November 8, 1996. (Speech records of Hashimoto Government [inJapanese]), <http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/danwa>

10<http://clearing.jinji.go.jp:8080/hakusho/book/jine200202/jine200202_2_009.html> (inJapanese)

11

Speech records of Hashimoto Government, <http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/danwa>(in Japanese)12

For instance, the SPCAR (1981-83) had one former senior bureaucrat out of nine
members.

13

Before Hashimoto took office in January 1996, the average tenure for a Prime Minister
over the preceding twenty years had been 630 days (about one year and nine months).

IIPS 2003 ◆ 25

Hiromi Yamamoto

Bibliography
Arrow, Kenneth J., Social Choice and Individual Values, New Haven, CT, Yale
University Press, 1963.
Aucoin, Peter, “Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles,
Paradoxes and Pendulums,” Governance, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.115-137, April 1990.
Barzelay, Michael, Origins of the New Public Management: An International View from
Public Administration/Political Science, in McLaughlin, Kate, Stephen P. Osborne, andEwan Ferlie (eds.), New Public Management: Current trends and Future Prospects,
Routledge, 2002.
Broadbent, Jane, and Richard Laughlin, “Public Service Professionals and the New
Public Management: Control of the Professions in the Public Service,” in McLaughlin,
Kate, Stephen P. Osborne, and Ewan Ferlie (eds.), New Public Management: Current
trends and Future Prospects, Routledge, 2002.
Buchanan, James, and Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundationsof Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1962.
Cabinet Office, The Next Steps Briefing Note, 1998.
Campbell, Colin, and Graham K. Wilson, The End of Whitehall, Blackwell, 1995.
Coase, Ronald, “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica, pp. 386-405, 1937.
Dawson, Sandra, and Charlotte Dargie, “New Public Management: A Discussion with
Special Reference to UK Health”, in McLaughlin, Kate, Stephen P. Osborne, and Ewan
Ferlie (eds.), New Public Management: Current trends and Future Prospects,
Routledge, 2002.
Deal, Terrence E., and Allan Kennedy, Corporate Cultures, Perseus Publishing, 1982.
DeLeon, Peter, and Mark T. Green, “Corruption and the New Public Management,” inJohns, Lawrence R., James Guthrie, and Peter Steane (eds.), Learning fromInternational Public Management Reform, Elsevier Science, 2001.
DeLeon, Linda, and Peter deLeon, “The Democratic Ethos and Public Management,”
Administration and Society, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 229-250, May 2002.
DeLeon, Linda, and Robert B. Denhardt, “The Political Theory of Reinvention,” Public
Administration Review, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 89-97, March/April 2000.
Denhardt, Robert B., and Janet Vinzant Denhardt, “The New Public Service: Serving
Rather than Steering,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 60, No. 6, pp. 549-559,
November/December 2000.

26 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s PracticeDowns, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York, Harper and Row,
1957.
_____________, Inside Bureaucracy, Boston, Little, Brown, 1967.
Drewry, Gavin, “Forward From F.M.I.: ‘The Next Steps’,” Public Law, incorporating
The British Journal of Administrative Law, pp. 505-515, 1988.
Dunleavy, Patrick, Democracy Bureaucracy and Public Choice, Harvester Wheatsheaf,
New York, 1991.
Dunleavy, Patrick, and Christopher Hood, “From Old Public Administration to New
Public Management,” Public Money and Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 9-16, 1994.
Efficiency Unit, Improving Management In Government: The Next Steps, London:
HMSO, 1988.
_____________, Making the Most of Next Steps: The Management of Ministers’
Departments and Their Executive Agencies: Report to the Prime Minister, HMSO,
1991.
Foster, Christopher D., and Francis J. Plowden, The State Under Stress: Can the Hollow
State be Good Government? Open University Press, 1996.
Fujita, Tokiyasu, “Kokuritsu Daigaku to Dokuritsu Gyousei Houjin Seido (National
Universities and the Systems of Independent Administrative Institutions),” Jurist, No.
1156, 1999 (in Japanese).
Gamble, Andrew, The Free Economy and the Strong State: The Politics of Thatcherism,
Basingstoke: Macmillan Education, 1988.
Goldsworthy, Diana, Setting Up Next Steps, London: HMSO, 1991.
Hashimoto, Ryutaro, Seiken Dakkairon (Recapturing the Political Power), Kodansha,
1994 (in Japanese).
Hibbs, Douglas A., The American Political Economy, Harvard University Press, 1987.
Hood, Christopher, “A Public Management for All Seasons?” Public Administration,
Vol. 69, pp. 3-19, Spring 1991.
_____________, “Contemporary Public Management: A New Global Paradigm?”
Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 104-117, Summer 1995a.
_____________, “The ‘New Public Management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a
Theme,” Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20, No. 2/3, pp. 93-109, 1995b.

IIPS 2003 ◆ 27

Hiromi Yamamoto

Hume, L. Jeremy, Bentham and Bureaucracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1981.
Johns, Lawrence R., James Guthrie, and Peter Steane (eds.), Learning fromInternational Public Management Reform, Elsevier Science, 2001.
Kaboolian, Linda, “The New Public Management,” Public Administration Review,Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 189-193, May/June 1998.
Kamensky, John, “Role of the ‘Reinventing Government’ Movement in Federal
Management Reform,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 247-256,
May/June 1996.
Kettl, Donald F., “Beyond the Rhetoric of Reinvention: Driving Theme of the Clinton
Administration’s Management Reforms,” Governance, Vol. 7, pp. 307-314, 1994.
_____________, The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on theTransformation of Governance, Brookings Institution Press, 2000.
Kickert, Walter J. M., “Public Management in the United States and Europe,” inKickert, Walter J. M., (ed.), Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western
Europe, Edward Elgar, 1997.
Kingdon, John W., Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (2nd edition), Harper
Collins College Publishers, 1995.
LDP, Gekkan Jiyu Minshu (Monthly Liberal Democrat), June 1996 (in Japanese).
Masujima, Toshiyuki, “Case Study of the Policy-Making Process: Examination of
Administrative Reform—Hashimoto’s Administrative Reform,” NIRA Policy Research,
Vol. 11, No. 6, National Institute for Research Advancement, 1998 (in Japanese).
McCourt, Willy, “New Public Management in Developing Countries,” in McLaughlin,
Osborne, and Ewan Ferlie (eds.), New Public Management: Current Trends and Future
Prospects, Routledge, 2002.
McLaughlin, Kate, Stephen P. Osborne, and Ewan Ferlie (eds.), New Public
Management: Current trends and Future Prospects, Routledge, 2002.
Mercle, J., Management and Ideology: the Legacy of the International ScientificManagement Movement, Berkeley: California University Press, 1980.
Metcalfe, Les, “Accountable Public Management: UK Concepts and Experience,” in
Kakabadse, Andrew, Paulo Rondo Brovetto and Rainer Holzen (eds.), Management
Development in the Public Sector, Avebury Press, Aldershot, 1989.
_____________, “Accountability and Effectiveness: Designing the Rules of Accounting
Game,” paper presented for the European Institute for Advanced Studies inManagement International Conference on “Accounting for the New Public
Management” in Venice, September 17-19, 1998.
28 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

Mintzberg, Henry, “Managing Government, Governing Management,” Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 75-83, 1996.
Mizuno, Kiyoshi (ed.), Kanryo to Kenryoku (Bureaucrats and Power), Shogakukan
Bunko, 2001 (in Japanese).
Moe, Terry, “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure,” in Chubb, John E., and Paul E.
Peterson (eds.), Can the Government Govern, Brookings Institution, pp. 267-329, 1989.
Mueller, Dennis C., Public Choice, Cambridge University Press, 1979.
_____________, Public Choice II, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Muramatsu, Michio, Political Analysis of Modern Public Administration, Yuhikaku,
2001 (in Japanese).
Niskanen, William, Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago, Rand
McNally, 1971.
OECD, Why Economic Policies Change Course, Paris, 1988.
______, Public Management Development Survey, Paris, 1990.
______, Public Management Development Survey, Paris, 1993.
______, Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries,
Paris, 1995.
______, In Search of Results: Performance Management Practices, Paris, 1997.
Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard
University Press, 1965.
Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government, Addison Wesley, Reading,
1992.
Peters, Guy, and Donald Savoie (eds.), Taking Stock: Assessing Public Sector Reforms,
Canadian Centre for Management Development/Centre Canadian de Gestion, 1998.
Peters, Thomas J., and Robert H. Waterman Jr., In Search of Excellence: Lessons from
America’s Best Run Companies, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1982.
Pierre, Jon and B. Guy Peters, Governance, Politics and the State, St Martin’s Press,
2000.

IIPS 2003 ◆ 29

Hiromi Yamamoto

Pollitt, Christopher, Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American
Experience (2nd edition), Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
_______________, “Justification by Works or by Faith” Evaluating the New Public
Management,” Evaluation, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 133-154, 1995.
_______________, “Managerialism Revisited,” in Peters, Guy, and Donald Savoie(eds.), Taking Stock: Assessing Public Sector Reforms, Canadian Centre forManagement Development/Centre Canadian de Gestion, 1998.
Pollitt, Christopher, et al., “Agency Fever? Analysis of an International Policy
Fashion,” to be published in Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2002.
Rhodes, R. A. W., Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance,
Reflexivity and Accountability, Open University Press, 1997.
Schick, Allen, The Spirit of Reform: Managing the New Zealand State Sector in a Timeof Change, The State Services Commission and the Treasury, 1996.
Shiyoyama, Hideaki, “Recent Administrative Reform in Japan-The Characteristics of
the Process and the Contents,” paper presented at the workshop on February 12, 2002.
Talbot, Colin, Pollitt, Christopher, et al., “The Idea of Agency: Researching the
Agencification of the (Public Service) World,” paper presented for the American
Political Studies Association Conference, Washington D.C., August 2000.
Tanaka, Kazuaki, and Akira Okada (eds.), Chuo-shouchou Kaikaku, (Reforms ofCentral Government Ministries), Nihon Hyoronsha, 2000 (in Japanese).
Tsuji, Kiyoaki (ed.), Public Administration in Japan, University of Tokyo Press, 1984.
Tullock, Gordon, The Politics of Bureaucracy, Washington DC, Public Affairs Press,
1965.
Walsh, Kieron, Public Services and Market Mechanisms: Competition, Contracting and
the New Public Management, Macmillan Press Ltd., 1995.
Williamson, Oliver E., Market and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications,
New York: Free Press, 1975.
_____________, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Market, Relational
Contracting, Collier Macmillan, 1985.
Wilson, James Q., Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It,
New York: Basic Books, 1989.
Zifcak, Spencer, New Managerialism: Administrative Reform in Whitehall andCanberra, Open University Press, 1994.

30 ◆ IIPS 2003

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

UK Parliamentary Documents
Hansard, HC Deb., Vol. 127, cols. 1149-56, 1988.
Treasury and Civil Service Committee (TCSC), HC494-I, II, Eighth Report, Civil
Service Management Reform: The Next Steps, HMSO, 1987/88.
The Government reply to the Eighth Report from the Treasury and Civil Service
Committee, Session 1987-88, HC494-I, Civil Service Management Reform: The Next
Steps, Cm524, HMSO, 1988.

IIPS 2003 ◆ 31

New Public Management - Japan’s Practice

About the author

Hiromi Yamamoto is a Senior Research Fellow
at the Institute for International Policy
Studies. She holds a B.A. in law from Waseda
University and an M.A. in international
relations from Sheffield University (UK), andis a Ph.D. candidate in Public Affairs at the
University of Colorado at Denver (USA). She
has also worked in the USA, at the Denver
Office of the Japan External Trade
Organization (JETRO). Before coming to IIPS
in September 2000, she was Deputy Directorof JETRO’s Market Access Research Divisionin Tokyo.

IIPS 2003 ◆ 35