01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 1

ellis s. krauss and robert pekkanen
Explaining Party Adaptation to Electoral Reform:
The Discreet Charm of the LDP?

Abstract: This article traces the effects of Japan’s 1994 electoral reform on
Japan’s governing party, the LDP. Factions have lost their central role in nominating candidates and deciding the party presidency but remain important in allocating party and Diet posts. Unexpectedly, kōenkai have grown stronger because they perform new functions. PARC remains important but diminished by
the enhanced policymaking role of party leaders in the coalition government. A
central theme is unpredicted organizational adaptation—“embedded choice”—
since 1994. We speculate on how this ﬂexibility of the LDP, adapting old organizational forms to new incentives, its “discreet charm,” may affect Japanesepolitics and the LDP’s potential longevity in power.

The decade that has passed since Japan fundamentally reformed the electoral system that had been in place since 1947, one that also had been used
for part of the prewar period, is enough time to begin to assess the consequences of that system for the way the ruling Liberal Democratic Party(LDP) mobilizes votes, and for its internal personnel and policymaking
organization. It is perhaps most surprising that the LDP continues in power
We are grateful to Gerry Curtis and Yoso Furumoto, for their interview introductions
and other suggestions, and to Matt Shugart, for his insights on electoral reform consequences.
We thank Len Schoppa, Ofer Feldman, and Komako Tanaka for interview suggestions; Meg
McKean and Masahiko Tatebayashi for sharing their ongoing research; and Pablo Pinto, Verena
Blechinger, John Campbell, Mikitaka Masuyama, Aurelia George Mulgan, Satoshi Machidori,
Steve Reed, and Yutaka Tsujinaka for feedback on our research and earlier versions of this article. We are grateful to T. J. Pempel, Ethan Scheiner, Masaru Kohno, members of the Middlebury College Political Science Faculty Research Group, three anonymous reviewers, and the editors of the Journal of Japanese Studies for helpful comments. Ellis Krauss thanks the Universityof California Paciﬁc Rim Grant Program, which funded one of his interview trips. Robert Pekkanen thanks the Henry Luce Foundation for ﬁnancial support of this research. We also appreciateresearch assistance by Daisuke Hotta, Sumiko Tanaka, Ashley Calkins, Grace Hardy, Rika Kido,
and Simon Fisherow.
Journal of Japanese Studies, 30:1
© 2004 Society for Japanese Studies

G&S Typesetters PDF proof1

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 2

2

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)

even after Japan has experienced more than a decade of serious economic
and ﬁnancial problems, and despite the electoral reforms that diminished therural-urban disparity in seats and changed the incentives for voters andpoliticians alike. How has the LDP adapted, or not adapted, to the changed
incentives of the new electoral system? Why? And with what implications
for Japanese politics?
The real-world stakes of the answer to this question are high. Given thepolitical and economic miasma that was Japan in the 1990s, understanding
the possibilities and realities of institutional reform is a crucial task. For example, if political organizational form and function is in the process ofchanging toward the British “Westminster” model of parliamentary governance with the type of party vote mobilization the reformers hoped for, andconsequently the top-down policymaking patterns Prime Minister Koizumi
Jun’ichirō tried to introduce, there will be important implications for policymaking. On the other hand, if the extent of change as a consequence of theelectoral system reform is not as great as the reformers hoped and the analysts predict, then Japan’s very “un-Westminster” 1 politics and policymaking may continue. Whether and how the LDP has adapted to the newelectoral incentives also has important consequences for the LDP’s ability tocontinue its dominance as the major governing party and for how it makes
policy and the kind of policy it makes.
The theoretical stakes are high as well. Japan’s electoral institutions
were dramatically changed in 1994. Anyone with an interest in how institutions affect politics should be interested in seeing what these changes havemeant for the practice of politics in Japan.
In this essay, we offer a preliminary evaluation of the effects of that reform on these aspects of Japan’s ruling party and their consequent implications for politics and policymaking based on interviews with politicians
themselves. We argue that the electoral reform has brought about, and isbringing about, changes, some foreseen and others not, in the way the LDP
conducts politics and policymaking. For example, it is more difﬁcult to win
elections by concentrating only on a component of conservatives in a district; representatives have been forced to think more about the “medianvoter” in their districts and thus often beneﬁt less from specialization in policy areas; and factions have lost much of their inﬂuence because they nolonger can help the candidate as much in elections.
These changes, however, often involve using organizational forms established, for different original purposes, under the old electoral system.
1. Aurelia George Mulgan, “Japan’s ‘Un-Westminster’ System: Impediments to Reform
in a Crisis Economy,” Government and Opposition, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Winter 2003), pp. 73 –91,
and Japan’s Failed Revolution: Koizumi and the Politics of Economic Reform (Canberra: Asia
Paciﬁc Press, 2002).

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 3

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

3

Beneath the surface of continuity in organization, the processes and functions of electoral mobilization, factional politics, and intra-LDP policymaking in the Policy Affairs Research Council (best known as PARC, but
the ofﬁcial English translation is Policy Research Council) have fundamentally changed even while the older organizational forms persist. We contend
that the reason for the perpetuation of these older organizational forms isthat the new electoral system continues to provide incentives for a personalvote strategy, and thus for the maintenance of the kōenkai, the candidatecentered voter mobilization organizations. Further, both PARC and factions
remain the party’s means of, and the representatives’ opportunity for, managing career advancement in the LDP and government, incentives that could
not be predicted by looking at changes in the electoral system alone.
We conclude that this type of LDP response to the new electoral system
has brought advantages to the party, but also costs to it and to the policymaking process. The current situation of conﬂict and often near-stalemate
between party leadership and old-line vested interests in the party, we suggest, is caused not by the failure of electoral reform to bring about meaningful change. Instead, the impasse is caused by the very type and extent ofchanges that electoral reform produced and the way the LDP and its representatives have adapted to them. This development itself may have signiﬁcant consequences for the LDP’s ability to remain the governing party, or toremain a party at all.
Electoral Systems and Electoral Reform in JapanAn emphasis on how institutions structure political outcomes has become one of the most pronounced features of political science since the advent of the “new institutionalisms.” 2 Of course, there were many changes inJapan around the time of electoral reform, including the end of the cold war
and the onset of a long-term recession, the decline of the Japan Socialist
Party (JSP), the splitting of the LDP, the increased inﬂuence of television onpolitics, administrative reform to try to diminish bureaucratic power, andchanging public attitudes toward political leadership. However, electoral institutions typically are deemed especially important because of the way theystructure incentives for politicians and political parties, and frame choices
for voters. Political scientists have long argued that the type of electoral system a democracy has profoundly inﬂuences its political organizations and2. For an overview, see Peter A. Hall and Rosemary C. R. Taylor, “Political Science andthe Three New Institutionalisms,” Political Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5 (December 1996), pp. 936 –58; Barry R. Weingast, “Rational-Choice Institutionalism,” in Ira Katznelson and Helen Milner, eds., Political Science: The State of the Discipline (New York: Norton, 2002); Paul Pierson and Theda Skocpol, “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science,” inKatznelson and Milner, eds., Political Science.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 4

4

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)

processes. Among the most accepted propositions along these lines is thatthe type of electoral system— especially a single-member district or a proportional representation one—affects the number of viable political parties
that can compete and whether resulting governments are most likely to beformed by a single-party or a coalition.3 Electoral-system incentives havealso been linked to the organization of legislatures and the party organizations within them, as well as to the strength or cohesion of political parties
in general.4
Political scientists of Japan also have focused on the institutional andorganizational effects of electoral systems.5 Japan’s unusual electoral system
of multimember districts (MMDs) with single nontransferable votes(SNTVs) from 1947 to 1993 in which each electoral district was represented
by between two and six representatives, but the voter cast only one ballot,
came to be seen as fundamentally shaping the characteristics of Japanesepolitics during this period.
The attributed consequences of the old electoral system, especially on
the ruling LDP, were myriad.6 They included intraparty rivalry as candidates
from the same party, especially the LDP, the only party large enough to ef3. This literature is too voluminous to cite. The “godfather” of all the studies of this relationship between electoral systems and party systems, however, is Maurice Duverger and his
seminal Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, translated by
Barbara and Robert North (New York: Wiley, 1954). A bibliography is available from the Section on Representation and Electoral Systems of the American Political Science Association.
4. Also a large literature, but see, for example, John W. Kingdon, Congressmen’s Voting
Decisions (New York: Harper and Row, 1981); Morris Fiorina, Representatives, Roll Calls, andConstituencies (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1974); Gary Cox and Mathew McCubbins, Legislative Leviathan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); Jeffrey Cason, “Electoral
Reform, Institutional Change, and Party Adaptation in Uruguay,” Latin American Politics andSociety, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Fall 2002), pp. 89 –109; and Scott J. Morganstern, “The Electoral Connection and the Legislative Process in Latin America: Factions, Parties, and Alliances in Theory and Practice” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, San Diego, 1996).
5. See, for example, Kobayashi Yoshiaki, Gendai Nihon no senkyo (Tokyo: Tokyo
Daigaku Shuppankai, 1992), who points out (pp. 2 –3) that at its simplest, even if voter behavior is exactly the same, different electoral systems will produce different results.
6. The most inﬂuential analysis from a rational choice perspective of the consequences ofJapan’s previous system, especially on how electoral rules stimulating intraparty rivalry led topolicy specialization, is found in Mark Ramseyer and Frances Rosenbluth, Japan’s PoliticalMarketplace (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), particularly pp. 17–37, andon factions, pp. 99 –141. Of course, analysts of Japanese politics had long described the electoral system as contributing to the political characteristics we discuss below: the electoral system was seen to help produce the personal vote, kōenkai, and the factional role in nominations
and funding. Others had also described the increasing specialization of LDP Diet members, andthe growth and inﬂuence of zoku giin produced by long-term LDP rule and the PARC systemof policymaking within the LDP. Ramseyer and Rosenbluth’s major contribution was to synthesize these attributes through a logical theory of the electoral system’s effects. Certainly on
the eve of electoral reform in 1994, Japanese reformers had very high expectations for the results of the electoral change.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 5

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

5fectively ﬁeld more than one candidate in most districts, competed witheach other more than with other parties’ candidates. To be elected the ﬁrst
time required securing the LDP’s nomination over other worthy and competing rivals also wanting to ﬁll that district’s several slots. This contributed
to the party’s notorious factionalism. As faction leaders, senior LDP politicians who had ambitions to become prime minister would aid particular aspiring candidates in securing the nominations in intraparty bargaining; inexchange, those candidates, if elected, would join the leader’s faction. Then,the leaders would provide ﬁnancial aid to those representatives throughout
their legislative careers to ensure reelection, and to secure for them usefulparty and governmental posts. In exchange, the leader expected his (nowomen have ever headed factions) faction members to support him within
the party in his future bid to become prime minister.
With several candidates from the LDP to choose from in their district,voters cast their ballots based on a “personal vote” for a candidate rather
than on party loyalty or on issue or policy positions.7 The LDP was facedwith a difﬁcult coordination problem. It needed to win multiple seats in most
districts in order to secure a majority in the Diet. Candidates, moreover,were limited in distinguishing themselves on policy platforms from othercandidates from the same party (to avoid having the party run against itself).
Instead, to reliably divide the vote, candidates of the same party appealed tovoters based on constituency services and loyalty bred by mobilizing voters
into personal candidate support organizations (kōenkai), and delivering particularistic beneﬁts ranging from bridges and dams to roads and agricultural
subsidies to the district, asking for recognition from their constituents fortheir efforts (“credit claiming” in the jargon of political scientists).
To secure this “pork” for their constituents and “credit claim” for doingso, LDP representatives joined speciﬁc divisions of the party’s Policy Affairs Research Council (PARC), which also provided them with expertiseand contacts with interest groups and ofﬁcials in that sector. Over time, theywould rise through party and governmental ranks related to their speciﬁc
7. The “personal vote” is a vote for a candidate based on personal characteristics, distinguishing it from a vote based on platforms. The term was developed in the study of American
politics. Technically, personal vote and kōenkai are not identical: the politician may receive
many personal votes from people who do not belong to the kōenkai, and some in the kōenkai
might be attracted to the politician for policy reasons. In practice, however, kōenkai and the personal vote overlap considerably and certainly a decline in personal vote would be reﬂected by adecline in the kōenkai. For example, national surveys of kōenkai members asking why they joinshow that the overwhelming bulk join for personal reasons (personal connections, 54.2 per cent;connections through work, 25.1 per cent). Those who join because of policy are at most 26 percent (and the response category also includes personal characteristics). Heisei 12-nenban yoronchōsa nenkan: zenkoku yoron chōsa no genkyō (Tokyo: Cabinet Ministers’ Secretariat Public
Relations Ofﬁce, 2001). On the American case, see Bruce Cain, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina, The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987).

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 6

6

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)

policy areas and be acknowledged as members of the group of inﬂuential
veteran LDP politicians able to dominate party policymaking in that sector(zoku giin) and to force the bureaucracy to adhere closely to the party’s political needs. In the process, zoku giin and factions wound up helping toseverely undermine the power and inﬂuence of the LDP prime ministerin policymaking.8 Political scientists attributed to the electoral system, in
whole or part, most of the characteristics we have come to associate with the
LDP and its rule.
Thus, political scientists saw the prereform system contributing to, oreven causing, personal vote mobilization (through the kōenkai), the importance of pork-barrel policymaking for constituents, specialization of Diet
members in PARC that led to the phenomenon of zoku giin, and intraparty
competition and factions. LDP reformers and the public by the early 1990s
went much further in their attribution of the old electoral system’s consequences, also coming to believe that its list of sins should include money
politics and corruption, the power of special interests, the lack of debate on
the issues in election campaigns, and one-party dominance. When a coalition of splinter parties from the LDP and former opposition parties dedicated to political reform took power in 1993, it succeeded in passing in 1994
electoral reform and campaign ﬁnance reform bills that eliminatedJapan’s old electoral system.9
The new electoral system adopted was a hybrid system of 300 singlemember districts (SMD) as in the United States and Britain, among others,
and 200 (later amended to 180) proportional representation (PR) seats as inmany continental European parliamentary systems. The hybrid nature of thesystem was the result of pure political compromise between the reformist
coalition and LDP members, whose votes were needed to get the bills
through the House of Councilors (the Upper House of the Diet), but was notunique. Indeed, so many nations recently have moved toward this hybrid
form to gain the beneﬁts of both equitable distribution of seats to votes andindividual representation of geographic units that such mixed electoral systems may well “prove to be the electoral reform of the twenty-ﬁrst century,as PR was in the twentieth century.” Italy, New Zealand, and Venezuela reformed their electoral systems to variations of such hybrid systems about
the same time as Japan.10
8. Kenji Hayao, The Japanese Prime Minister and Public Policy (Pittsburgh: Universityof Pittsburgh Press, 1993), especially pp. 96 –121 and 141–56; Aurelia George Mulgan,“Japan’s ‘Un-Westminster’ System” and Japan’s Failed Revolution.
9. On this process, see Gerald Curtis, The Logic of Japanese Politics: Leaders, Institutions, and the Limits of Change (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), pp. 137–70.
10. Matthew Soberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg, “Introduction,” in Shugart andWattenberg, eds., Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 1, 2; Matthew Soberg Shugart, “Electoral ‘Efﬁciency’ and the

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 7

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

7

Unusual in the Japanese case, however, were complications that resulted
from a compromise between the LDP, which favored a pure SMD system,and the other, smaller parties that would have been advantaged with a purePR system. These complications also gave the incumbents who voted for thereform a better chance to remain winners under the new system. The mostimportant of these complications were that proportional representation
was regional rather than national, and candidates who failed in the singlemember districts could be listed on their parties’ PR list and still win a seat
if they were listed high enough—these are called “zombie” candidates inJapan because they can rise from the dead! Parties received seats proportional to their share of the vote in the PR bloc. As more than one candidate
could be listed in a rank on the parties’ list, winners among the SMD losing
candidates at the same rank would be determined by the proportion of thevote they won in their SMD races. This may be called a “best loser” provision for short.11
Thus, in the two elections of 1996 and 2000, Japanese voters had two
ballots to cast for the House of Representatives (the lower, more powerfulhouse in Japan): one for their local representative in the single-member district, which had smaller geographic boundaries than the previous multimember districts, and one for a party (in 2000 they also had the option to
cast it for an individual on the list) in one of the 11 regional proportional representation blocs.
The Consequences of Reform
There is now a burgeoning literature on the effects of these electoral reforms of 1994. Some of these works have been primarily about the effects
Move to Mixed-Member Systems,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 20 (2001), p. 178. There are twoforms of such systems, a “compensatory” version, like Germany’s system, and the form towhich New Zealand and Venezuela moved, so that the results of the SMD races are compensated for to produce overall seat results that emulated proportionality of seats to votes. The
other type is the “parallel” form in which the SMD and PR portions are largely separate andoverall results are not necessarily proportional. Japan and Italy adopted this latter type.
11. This process is reviled in the press, where it is treated as a repudiation of the people’s
will destructive to democracy. Press complaints began almost from the moment the ﬁrst zombie representative was elected, but diminished somewhat after 2000 revisions in the electoral
law disqualiﬁed candidates who failed to collect at least one-tenth of the effective vote ina single-seat district (nine candidates were elected in 1996 with fewer than one-sixth of thevotes in the SMD in which they ran). This vitriol should not disguise the reality that dual candidates are quite common in mixed systems. It is the even ranking of SMD candidates in the
PR section that has such a powerful impact. Our thanks to Matt Shugart for emphasizing theimportance of this provision and giving it the “best loser” appellation. Italy’s reform also has
an unusual feature called “scorporo” that compensates smaller parties in the PR portion. See
also Margaret A. McKean and Ethan Scheiner, “Japan’s New Electoral System: La plus çachange . . . ,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 19 (2000), pp. 447–77.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 8

8

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)of the mixed-member system on the number of parties or of campaign ﬁnance reform on levels of corruption. Others, and the ones we are most concerned with here, were about how electoral reform would affect the LDP’scandidate-centered mobilization of the “personal vote,” and the LDP’s party
organization and policymaking structure. More recently, a number of observers have contributed empirical analyses of what has actually changed
due to electoral reforms.12 Thus, almost a decade after the reforms were implemented, we are beginning to get a more complete picture of the changes
the electoral reforms have wrought.
In terms of the party system, the results thus far appear to conﬁrm someeffects that political scientists would have predicted. The following is fairly
clear: the LDP is able to continue being the largest party, for example, because it can be successful in the 300 SMD-seat portion of the system; it has
difﬁculty remaining the sole governing party because the 180-seat PR portion gives incentives for smaller parties to continue to exist and deprive the
LDP of a majority of seats, thus producing a limited multiparty system withcoalition governments; and interaction effects on voting across the two
types of systems, and the “best loser” provision, potentially complicate whatmight have been independent effects of each type of system.13
What has been less clear, however, are the more “microlevel” effects ofthe electoral change on the LDP’s organization and modes of operation, in12. See, for example, Karen E. Cox and Leonard J. Schoppa, “Interaction Effects in
Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Theory and Evidence from Germany, Japan, and Italy,”Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35, No. 9 (November 2002); Steven R. Reed, “Evaluating
Political Reform in Japan: A Midterm Report,” Japanese Journal of Political Science, Vol. 3,
No. 2 (November 2002); Curtis, The Logic of Japanese Politics. Also, it is important to notethat many electoral regulations that contributed to the personal vote did not change, and this iscovered very well in Raymond V. Christensen, “Putting New Wine into Old Bottles: The Effect of Electoral Reform on Campaign Practices in Japan,” Asian Survey, Vol. 38 (1998). See
also Erik S. Herron and Misa Nishikawa, “Contamination Effects and the Number of Parties in
Mixed-Superposition Electoral Systems,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 20 (2001). Some authors
made logical theoretical deductions even before the reforms about the consequences of any
hypothetical change in electoral system and implicitly or explicitly included claims about theeffects of the transformation from the old to the new system. These include Ramseyer andRosenbluth, Japan’s Political Marketplace; Peter F. Cowhey and Mathew D. McCubbins, “Introduction,” in Cowhey and McCubbins, eds., Structure and Policy in Japan and the UnitedStates (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Recent empirical work is found in
Michael F. Thies, “Changing How the Japanese Vote: The Promise and Pitfalls of the 1994
Electoral Reform,” in John Fuh-sheng Hsieh and David Newman, eds., How Asia Votes (NewYork: Chatham House, 2002); Steven R. Reed and Michael F. Thies, “The Consequences ofElectoral Reform in Japan,” in Shugart and Wattenberg, eds., Mixed-Member Electoral Systems, pp. 106; Gary W. Cox, Frances Rosenbluth, and Michael F. Thies, “Electoral Reform andthe Fate of Factions: The Case of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 29 (1999); and Cheol Hee Park, “Factional Dynamics in Japan’s LDP since
Political Reform,” Asian Survey, Vol. 41, No. 3 (2001), pp. 428 – 61.
13. On interaction effects with a hybrid system, see for example, Cox and Schoppa, “Interaction Effects.”

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 9

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

9

cluding kōenkai and vote mobilization, factions, and PARC and policymaking. The predictions and ﬁndings on these important aspects of governing party politics have been diverse. Some prognosticators have been quite
cynical about the prospects for change, others more optimistic.
Part of the problem has been that much of the theory of how electoral systems affect politics is based on explicit or implicit assumptions about the incentives of politicians and parties, yet few if any studies have actually asked
the politicians themselves whether and how their behavior has changed, andwhy.14 Deductive, logical attributions of “incentives” must be investigatedempirically to determine whether and how institutional change actually affects the motivations and behavior of politicians. Below we present the ﬁndings of our research using an initial set of interviews that undertook to doexactly this—a preliminary evaluation of the changes electoral reform has
wrought and is bringing to key components of the LDP’s organization,
based on a series of interviews with sitting Diet members of the LDP, theDemocratic Party of Japan (DPJ), and the Clean Government and New Conservative Parties (including two former prime ministers, former cabinet
ministers, current deputy party secretary-generals, politicians elected only
once as well as veterans, and members of the House of Councilors), alongwith LDP party headquarters staff and political journalists.15
We concentrate below on changes in three areas: the role of PARC andzoku giin, factions, and kōenkai. These are all mainly issues of the LDP, its
representatives’ careers, policymaking, and the organization and process ofvote mobilization. We focus on these internal party attributes and functions
because analysts, often and to a great degree, attributed their origins to theold electoral system, and these should show the most immediate effects fromthe change in Japan’s electoral system.
Our ﬁndings indicate a more complicated answer to the question ofwhether Japanese politics has been transformed to a different model of vote
14. Studies have been based on observation primarily, or some excellent intensive casestudies of particular areas as in Otake Hideo, ed., How Electoral Reform Boomeranged: Continuity in Japanese Campaigning Style (Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange,1998); and Cheol Hee Park, Daigishi no tsukurarekata (Tokyo: Bungei Shunjū, 2000). Both thelatter, however, are based on research before the 2000 election.
15. We interviewed a total of 23 persons in Tokyo in the fall 2001 and the spring of 2002.
Two Diet members were interviewed twice and one interview was conducted as a joint interview with three people. The politicans interviewed were from different parties, and froma range of home districts, who have been elected a various number of times. We addressedissues of bias by paying careful attention to the range and characteristics of the sample of interviewees. The interviews focused on electoral reform, campaign ﬁnance reform, administrative reform, politician-bureaucrat relations, constituency representation, party organization,kōenkai, factions, PARC, zoku, policymaking, and career advancement. Most interviews wereconducted by both authors, but several were conducted by one of the authors alone. Interviews
ranged from one hour to one and a half hours in length and were conducted in Japanese (except
two conducted in English). Interviewees are identiﬁed herein only as A, B, C, etc., along withan indication of their positions.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 10

Journal of Japanese Studies

10

30:1 (2004)

mobilization and party organization than a simple “yes” or “no.” Some predictions and analyses about real changes are conﬁrmed by our ﬁndings,
especially about the changed incentives and consequent adaptation of behavior by many individual politicians; but we also discover that any expectations about the demise or complete transformation of the particularorganization forms in that adaptation may be frustrated. Finally, we end
with some implications of our ﬁndings for the LDP and Japanese politics.16
Kōenkai
Reformers as well as analysts expected that the new electoral system
would eliminate the need for the personal vote, and therefore by implication
the utility of the kōenkai, the chief organization by which it was gathered.
Instead, the new system would force candidates to broaden their appeal,move toward the median voter, and compete on issues.17 Some predictedthat the kōenkai would be, and by 1996 that it already was, transforming into
the local party branch, in part because of new campaign ﬁnancing regulations that allowed contributions, and national party distribution of funds, tolocal party branches.18 There is indeed a notable increase in the number ofparty branches, springing up according to one recent newspaper article like“bamboo shoots after a rain,” 19 because of the change in campaign ﬁnances.
We ﬁnd, however, that kōenkai continue to exist and that they havenot completely been subsumed into the local LDP party branches.20 Even in
the face of decline in party support, kōenkai membership has remained
strong, if possibly not as strong as previously.21
This has happened for several important reasons. First, as Christensen
16. We also intend to continue researching these issues and combine analysis of an extensive data set with a large selection of in-depth interviews with politicians.
17. Curtis, The Logic of Japanese Politics, p. 138; Thies, “Changing How the JapaneseVote,” p. 103.
18. Curtis, The Logic of Japanese Politics, pp. 165 – 66.
19. Yomiuri shinbun, December 27, 2001.
20. Predictions ranged widely. Haruhiro Fukui and Shigeko N. Fukai wrote in 1996 thatthe electoral system change might make the kōenkai “unnecessary and even irrelevant” although they may survive for a while. (Haruhiro Fukui and Shigeko N. Fukai, “Pork Barrel Politics, Networks, and Local Economic Development in Contemporary Japan,” Asian Survey,
Vol. 36, No. 3 [March 1996], pp. 268 – 86, quotes from p. 284 and p. 285 respectively.) Not allpolitical analysts saw kōenkai as doomed, and their survival conﬁrms the prescience of Abe,
Shindou, and Kawato prior to the electoral reform. They warned that the kōenkai was not necessarily going to disappear. (Hitoshi Abe, Muneyuki Shindou, and Sadafumi Kawato, The
Government and Politics of Japan, trans. James W. White [Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press,
1994], pp. 180 – 81.) It also conﬁrms the ﬁnding of Raymond V. Christensen for the 1996 election (Christensen, “The Effect of Electoral Reform”).
21. Kōenkai membership has increased since the 1960s. In 1967, membership was only
5.8 per cent (Curtis, Election Campaigning, Japanese Style, pp. 133 –36). See also Yamada
Masahiro, “Jimintō daigaishi no shūhyō shisutemu” (Ph.D. diss., Tsukuba University, 1992).

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 11

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

11

argued,22 the continuation of strict restrictions on candidates’ campaign activities means that there are few other ways to reach the voter. The wider constituency that the Diet member from a single-member district must represent
does not eliminate the need for a personal vote. Reformers forgot that thepersonal vote exists in SMD systems elsewhere, such as in the United States.
The candidates usually cannot or do not want to substitute a local party
branch for the kōenkai, for several reasons. One is the simple fact that local
party branches are still weak and very much the responsibility of the nowlone LDP representative in the district. One representative told us clearly
that the party branch and his ofﬁce are now synonymous and that if he is going to rely on the staff, he wants them to do policy-related activity, but theexpertise just doesn’t exist and he winds up doing everything himself.23 So
there is little incentive for candidates to rely heavily on the party branch.
But why not just convert the kōenkai into the party branch? One obstacle is the “best loser” provision of the hybrid electoral system whereby
losing candidates in the SMDs may still be elected on the proportional representation list. If the LDP ranks candidates who are also running in SMDs
equally with others on the party’s PR list, which candidate(s) actually gets aseat depends upon the proportion of that candidate’s vote in the SMD constituency. Therefore, in addition to the usual motivation to attract votes totry to win in the SMD, even if they don’t expect to win there, politicians still
have great incentive to attract as many votes for themselves as they can—including personal votes in addition to party votes. They cannot rely solely
on party voters to get them a seat in the PR portion.
A related and perhaps the most important reason is that the wider baserequired in the SMD-PR system requires the Diet member to get votes from
more than party supporters.24 One representative put it this way: “Mykōenkai is 10,000 people, the LDP organization is 5,000. Therefore, they’re
totally different. However, they also have a ‘link.’ Still, essentially, I think
I’d like to make them the same organization but, after all, in it [the kōenkai]
are those who hate the LDP but like me.” 25
Especially in districts where the LDP is not particularly popular, Diet
members feel pressure to develop, not eliminate, kōenkai. One representative pointed out to us that in his district only about half of the people who
vote for him vote for the LDP in the PR elections: “Therefore, in short, it’s
‘I’ll join because it’s his kōenkai,’ but when I ask them to join this or that
22. Christensen, “The Effect of Electoral Reform.”
23. Second interview with A, young LDP member of the House of Representatives,
Tokyo, June 27, 2002.
24. An electoral consequence, incidentally, presciently described for the agricultural sector by Aurelia George Mulgan, “‘Japan Inc.’ in the Agricultural Sector: Reform or Regression?” Australia National University Paciﬁc Economic Papers, No. 314 (April 2001).
25. Interview with B, an SMD LDP member of the House of Representatives and aformer minister, Tokyo, December 7, 2001.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 12

12

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)

branch of the LDP, the overwhelming numbers of people these days say ‘Ihate the LDP!’ Thus, because they support me, they enter my kōenkai.” 26
Diet members emphasized to us that in order to feel secure of victory ina single-member district, they had to secure a large number of votes fromnon-LDP voters. Under the old system, LDP kōenkai were assumed to be
only for conservative supporters who liked the LDP. We were surprised,however, to ﬁnd how many LDP representatives now had extremely diversekōenkai members and supporting voters, including many who were supporters of other parties. One former LDP prime minister, Kaifu Toshiki,
now with the New Conservative Party that is in the governing coalition,
showed us an article from a regional newspaper during the last election thatindicated that while he retained close to 70 per cent of LDP supporters in his
district, he received over 80 per cent support from Clean Government Party(CGP) voters. This may not be surprising, considering his party is in thecoalition government with the LDP and CGP. But the article also indicatedhe received 10 per cent of the vote of Communist Party supporters.27 OtherLDP representatives conﬁrmed the diversity of their kōenkai members andthe inclusion of even leftist party supporters who in local or the PR portionof House of Representatives elections probably voted for other parties.28
The widely noted phenomenon of decreasing party identiﬁcation also
contributes to this function of the kōenkai.29 Japanese identify themselves as
supporters of a party less than citizens in any other consolidated democracy.
When less than a third of voters identify themselves as LDP supporters, candidates must seek nonparty voters with greater urgency. The natural vehicle
for this search is the kōenkai, but of course participation in a kōenkai likely
contributes less to party identiﬁcation than would a party branch. In this way,kōenkai are both a solution to and a potential additional cause of diminishing party identiﬁcation. Some representatives indicated to us that there wasa distinction here between urban and rural constituents. In at least some districts, in rural areas members of a kōenkai are more likely to be LDP supporters—perhaps as many as 70 per cent—than in urban areas, where theproportion of LDP voters in a Diet member’s kōenkai may be half or less.30
Thus, it is important to note that the new electoral system itself has abetted the continuance of the kōenkai. Voters can identify themselves as non26. Interview with C, a junior SMD LDP member of the House of Represenstatives froman LDP political family, Tokyo, December 11, 2001.
27. Chūnichi shinbun, June 20, 2000.
28. In fact, coalition government probably also contributes to the broadening of thekōenkai. The logic is this: if a voter supports Party A, but the SMD legislator is from Party B
and Party A and Party B are in coalition, the voter might feel that the SMD legislator nonetheless represents the voter and join his or her kōenkai.
29. This literature is particularly widely developed by Japanese scholars. For a leading example, see work by Ikuo Kabashima including “The Instability of Party Identiﬁcation among
Eligible Japanese Voters,” Party Politics, Vol. 4 (November 1998), pp. 151–76.
30. Second interview with A.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 13

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

13

LDP and vote for the other parties they may support for other reasons in the
PR vote, but still vote for the LDP candidate, especially the incumbent, in
the SMD portion of the election for the personal services and district beneﬁts the candidate can bring.31 The kōenkai allows the LDP as the largest
party a means to hang on to its own supporters and to attract those of thesmaller parties through a personal vote.
Finally, the personal vote continues because those in business who deal
with customers do not necessarily want to be identiﬁed with a particularparty: “The people who sell to customers in service industries, as you’d
expect, don’t want to go into a speciﬁc political party, whether LDP or
DPJ. . . .Therefore, they’re saying ‘Well, I won’t join a party but I’ll becomea member of that representative’s kōenkai.’” 32
Above and beyond the persistence of the kōenkai as an electoral organization device, however, there are broader and more fundamental implications of its continuation. The electoral reform intending to end the personalvote also was supposed to create politicians who emphasize different policy
preferences, carry out more programmatic campaigns, and produce morepolicies oriented toward securing public goods.33 Will the continuation ofkōenkai and the mobilization of a personal vote through it negate such consequences permanently? Or will the need to cater to a broader constituency
within the kōenkai now lead to the predicted outcomes, even if in somewhat
altered form? As we discuss in the conclusion, we also ﬁnd that the existence of the kōenkai touches upon a number of important theoretical issuesof constituency, including helping to solve the problem of increased “constituency span” that we introduce below.
Factions
Some journalists and academics expected that the adoption of a singlemember district system (again the logic holds also for a mixed system)
would severely weaken, or perhaps even lead to the demise of factions. As
early as the 1960s, the Asahi shinbun predicted that “if a single-member
31. Some analysts have argued that voters do not have as much incentive to be “strategic”
about voting for the largest parties in the SMD portion of such mixed systems as they do in“pure” SMD, and this would increase the utility of a kōenkai that mobilized other party supporters. See Herron and Nishikawa, “Contamination Effects.”
32. Joint interview with three LDP headquarters staff members, Tokyo, June 27, 2002.
33. See, for example, Cowhey and McCubbins, “Introduction,” pp. 258 –59; Thies,“Changing How the Japanese Vote,” p. 105. On the other hand, Yamada and Otake argue
that SMDs spur local legislators to get out the organized vote. See Hideo Otake, “How a
Diet Member’s Koenkai Adapts to Social and Political Changes,” and Masahiro Yamada,“Nukaga Fukushiro: Climbing the Ladder to Inﬂuence,” in Otake, ed., How Electoral Reform
Boomeranged. The declaration of “manifestoes” by Prime Minister Koizumi Jun’ichirō and the
DPJ leader Kan Naoto in July 2003 came too late for analysis in this article, but could be astrong step toward campaigning on platforms (both appear in the August 2003 issue of Chūōkōron).

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 14

14

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)

constituency [system] is created . . . the factions will naturally disappear.34
Mark Ramseyer and Frances Rosenbluth explicitly argued that factions
existed in the LDP due to the need for vote division in the single nontransferable vote system: “the electoral system alone is sufﬁcient to explain thesurvival of LDP factions.” 35 Finally, Masaru Kohno argued that “factions
persist because they meet the electoral incentives of rational LDP candidates,” but that there were also “secondary incentives” in the form of theirfunction in aiding promotion to party and government positions.36
Recent analyses have conceded the continuing existence of factions,while also arguing that factions have been fundamentally transformed fromtheir pre-1994 functions.37 Here, our ﬁndings conﬁrm those of several otherrecent analyses. Factions have not yet withered away, despite the electoralchange; but their role has changed.
How have factions been transformed? First, factions’ decisive role indetermining the LDP party president (and thus the prime minister) seems
to have been at least partially compromised recently.38 The year after the
1994 electoral reform, Hashimoto Ryūtarō defeated Kōno Yōhei with thesupport of LDP backbenchers.39 In 1998, the Obuchi Keizō faction ran two
candidates— Obuchi himself and Kajiyama Seiroku. Most dramatically, in2001 Koizumi Jun’ichirō won the party presidency even though the faction
bosses were lined up behind another candidate—ironically, Hashimoto thistime. Factions still count in inﬂuencing who becomes prime minister, butthey are no longer the whole “game.” And several of our respondents emphasized that loyalty to factions and the personal leadership of old-time faction bosses that inspired it also have disappeared: “Different from the past,
there are many factions that lack loyalty.” 40
34. See Thayer, How the Conservatives Rule Japan, p. 141, quoting from an Asahi shinbun article, September 14, 1964, p. 4.
35. Ramseyer and Rosenbluth, Japan’s Political Marketplace, p. 59. They also stressed
the importance of the party presidential selection rules. This differs in emphasis from Thayer,
How the Conservatives Rule Japan, p. 21, who argued that the electoral system was only one
contributing cause of the growth of LDP factionalism, but that more important was the meansof selecting the party president. See also Morganstern, “The Electoral Connection and the Legislative Process in Latin America.”
36. Masaru Kohno, “Rational Foundations for the Organization of the Liberal Democratic
Party in Japan,” World Politics, Vol. 44, No. 3 (April 1992), pp. 385, 391.
37. Thies, “Changing How the Japanese Vote”; and Cox, Rosenbluth, and Thies, “Electoral Reform and the Fate of Factions.”
38. Thies, “ Changing How the Japanese Vote.”
39. See ibid., pp. 49 –55. LDP ofﬁcials also expected an end to factions. “With the abolition of the medium-sized electoral district, there would be a single LDP candidate in 300 districts, and factions were expected to dissolve.” Mabuchi Etsuo, Jimintō no kenkyū (Hamamatsu: Shizuoka Shinbunsha, 2001), p. 202.
40. Interview with D, a PR LDP member of the House of Representatives, Tokyo, December 2001.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 15

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

15

Although the maneuvers leading up to the LDP party presidential election of September 2003 were still in process when we were copyediting thisarticle, we note that its major strife seems not to have been between factions,as much as within them. Many factions, including the largest, Hashimoto
faction, are having difﬁculty agreeing on a uniﬁed candidate in the race.
This recent process graphically constitutes further evidence for our argument of the decline of factional loyalty, cohesion, and inﬂuence in theparty’s selection of its leader and prime minister, and the shift of emphasis
within the party from personal faction to policy conﬂicts.41
A second way factions have been transformed is the loss of their importance in helping candidates in elections, ﬁrst for district elections nominations, and secondarily with money. Factions were crucial in determining
the nominations under the old electoral system and for otherwise aiding
their faction member in a particular district to get elected in rivalry withparty colleagues who belonged to other factions. Under the new system,some argue factions have not played a role in determining nominations either for SMD districts or the PR lists.42 Sometime before the new electoral
system, the role of factions in directly providing money to their members fortheir elections and kōenkai had declined in favor of the candidates making
their own connections to business to raise funds directly, even if those connections were often made with the help of the faction leader.43 The newcampaign regulations that ﬁrst limited, and now forbid, contributions to any
organization except the party have further undermined factions’ ﬁnancialrole for Diet elections.
The result is that our interviews conﬁrmed that Diet members no longer
see factions as relevant at all for any sort of electoral help: “Factions had
three roles, the most important one was helping you in the election. Until
now you had an electoral struggle with a member of another faction but
since it’s SMD, it’s one person for the party. Therefore, it no longer has any
function.” 44 Others agreed: “I don’t necessarily think the factions of old
were bad, but ultimately things are different than in the multimember district system. Nobody looks after you in elections [senkyo no mendō o miru]
any more.” 45
Even if this is true of most SMD incumbents, it remains to be determined by empirical investigation whether ﬁrst-time nominees in a district
can do completely without faction help, or PR candidates without faction
help can be ranked in a “safe” position on the party list. It is quite clear, however, that factions remain very important in one regard: allocation of posts
41. See “Hashimoto jishutōhyō e,” Asahi shinbun, September 3, 2003, p. 1.
42. Cox, Rosenbluth, and Thies, “Electoral Reform and the Fate of Factions,” pp. 42 – 43.
43. Gerald Curtis, The Japanese Way of Politics (New York: Columbia, 1988), p. 175.
44. Interview with C.
45. Interview with D.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 16

Journal of Japanese Studies

16

30:1 (2004)

and thus career advancement, as Steven Reed and Michael Thies have argued: “the ﬁnal role of factions—post allocation—seems to have survived
intact.” 46 Our interviews conﬁrmed the assertions of others 47 that this is theone area that still provides incentives to belong to a faction. As one Diet
member succinctly put it,
the function of factions now is personnel only. It’s the faction that recommends a minister, or me to my past committee. However, Koizumi didn’t dofactional nominations for minister; even so, for vice-minister and secretary
it was still faction recommendations. Therefore it was a really incomplete
reform. After that the factions decided all the PARC research committees
and divisions and so forth. Thus, ultimately only this personnel power is thereason for the continuance of factions now.48

Moreover, as Koizumi’s popularity waned, his ability to disregard factions in selecting even cabinet members disappeared. In replacing scandalplagued Ōshima Tadamori in April 2003, Koizumi was forced to turn to faction leaders to ﬁnd a replacement.49
Several of our interviewees, both in and out of factions, vividly illustrated the continuing importance of factions in the allocation of party andDiet posts. One respondent said the process of distribution of these posts
was “simple”—“it’s factions, eh? They’re responsible for the distribution ofcommittee and then [PARC] division [posts]; it’s all factions.” He then went
on to describe and give examples of how the deputy chairmen (kokkaitaisaku
fukuiinchō) of the Diet Affairs Committee all come from factions and bargain among each other and also with the other parties’ equivalent leaders tosettle the speciﬁc distribution of Diet committee posts. He further elaborated on how the LDP’s vice secretary-generals (ofﬁcially, acting secretary-generals; fukukanjichō) horse trade and settle among themselves the division chairs and vice-chairs of PARC, as well as the personnel in over 100
special, issue, and research committees (tokubetsuiinkai; mondai iinkai;chōsakai) so that their faction’s Diet members can go to their constituents
bearing many titles in the party’s policymaking apparatus.50
Perhaps even more graphic testimony to the continued power of factions, despite the electoral reform, in the allocation of party and Diet posts
came from those who were not members of a faction and did not get theirpreferred postings:
46. Reed and Thies, “The Consequences of Electoral Reform,” p. 393.
47. Thies, “Changing How the Japanese Vote”; Cox, Rosenbluth, and Thies, “Electoral
Reform and the Fate of Factions”; and Park, “Factional Dynamics in Japan’s LDP,” who alsostresses the continuing party management functions of factions.
48. Interview with C.
49. Asahi shinbun, April 2, 2003.
50. Interview with E, an LDP Diet member elected a few times and a member of one of
the LDP’s largest factions, Tokyo, July 4, 2002.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 17

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

17

I’m not in a faction. The way someone got put into those committees wascompletely from factional order, and ultimately the nonfaction guys are put
into what’s left. So, since no one wanted X and Y committees, since there
wasn’t anyone, in the end I was diverted into these. Well, there’s nothing I
can do about it.51

Recall too that such party and Diet postings ultimately prepare and test
Diet members for their higher postings as PARC division chairs, Diet committee chairs, and cabinet ministers and junior ministers. Factions may havelost many of their roles and functions in nominations and ﬁnancing in part
because of the new electoral system, but it is no wonder that an LDP party
executive intimately involved in this process can tell us “the function that remains the most is ‘posts.’” 52 Factions have retained their considerable inﬂuence over the party and government career paths of their members.
PARC and Zoku Giin
Analyses of the old multimember system had contended that PARC
served a vote division function through specialization. Faced with the needto elect multiple candidates from a single district, and precluded from policy differentiation among these candidates, the argument went, the LDP allowed or encouraged different Diet members to specialize in different kindsof disaggregable goods, or “pork.” 53 In other words, one LDP Diet member
would become the “rice specialist” while another would become the “construction specialist.” This specialization would coordinate the votes fromthe LDP’s core constituencies so that they were not wasted, and the LDP
would maximize its winning seats. Specialization was achieved primarily
through PARC committee (bukai) assignments.54
Assuming that specialization was only for “credit-claiming” in elections, some logically predicted that the single-member district system
would lead to the disappearance of PARC and that Japan would come to
51. Interview with F, junior Diet member from Tokyo district, Tokyo, July 9, 2002.
52. Interview with G, LDP party executive involved in post allocation, Tokyo, July 1,
2002.
53. Ramseyer and Rosenbluth, Japan’s Political Marketplace; and McCubbins andRosenbluth, “Party Provision for Personal Politics.”
54. However, it is important to note that later Tatebayashi and McKean presented revisionist ﬁndings on PARC prior to the electoral system change. Their analysis conﬁrmed that PARC
did serve a vote division function, but challenged this notion of “pork specialization.” They did
ﬁnd some specialization for representatives, but found it geographically. Those with concentrated bases (jiban) delivered pork to their districts but did not specialize, while those who specialized didn’t necessarily do so with pork. See Masahiko Tatebayashi and Margaret McKean,“Vote Division and Policy Differentiation Strategies of LDP Members under SNTV/MMD
in Japan,” paper presented to the Conference on Citizen-Elite Linkages, Duke University,
March 30-April 1, 2001, and to the Association for Asian Studies, Washington, April 4 –7, 2002.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 18

Journal of Japanese Studies

18

30:1 (2004)

more closely resemble the British model of party organization and vote mobilization. For example, Peter Cowhey and Mathew McCubbins argued in
1995 that: “If it is true that the raison d’etre of the PARC committee structure is to aid in district-level vote division, then we should expect to see
nothing short of its demise.” 55
Nine years after electoral reform, PARC has changed but continues toexist. Gerald Curtis pointed out as early as 1988 that PARC has three mainfunctions: educate Diet members; provide a means by which Diet members
can signal to constituents; and allow Diet members (especially zoku giin)
to have some inﬂuence over policy.56 Although signaling to constituentsand “credit claiming” for inﬂuence on policy in speciﬁc areas have been
severely weakened, the other two functions remain and thus PARC has notdisappeared.
In our research, we found that the PARC role has been transformed by
the change in the electoral system but somewhat differently than some had
predicted. The representative from the SMD and the PR representative alikemust now represent a wider diversity of constituents. Staff members at LDP
headquarters we interviewed were articulate in comparing the requirements
for election under the single-member district and under the old multimember district:In the case of the single-member district, increasingly you have to gather[votes] equally from both agriculture and small and medium-sized enterprises in the district. Hitherto, to give an extreme example, you could win
with one-ﬁfth of the votes in a ﬁve-person choice. . . .[Now] over half is necessary. But there aren’t nearly enough votes for that in one organization. So
you depend on various sources and become an “almighty expert” in everything. In a single-member district, you can’t win without obtaining the support of several strata, several occupations, several industries.57

As a result, Diet members, especially those elected from single-member
districts, have less need to specialize either geographically or in a particularpolicy area, but instead now need wider policy expertise in several policy
areas.58 One representative put it like this:I think that the thing the SMD electoral district has changed in the consciousness of politicians is that politicians are now studying more. In other
55. Cowhey and McCubbins, “Introduction,” pp. 257–58. Cowhey and McCubbins’s prediction was based on the elimination of the SNTV and should hold true even under a mixed
system.
56. Curtis, The Japanese Way of Politics, p. 114. See also Inoguchi Takashi, Gendai
Nihon no seiji kiso (Tokyo: NTT Shuppan, 2002), pp. 107– 44 and 310 –15.
57. LDP headquarters staff interview, Tokyo, June 27, 2002.
58. As noted above, George Mulgan observed this for the agricultural sector in “‘Japan
Inc.’ in the Agricultural Sector.”

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 19

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform19

words, when it became the SMD, we had to respond on all issues, ﬁnance,
agriculture, and defense issues too. . . .I’m saying that it indicates an “allround player.” . . . When it was the multimember district, you had to completely be specialized into your own niche [sumiwakerarechau].59

Incentives for specialization have diminished. Equally important, theparty no longer has a need to differentiate multiple candidates in one electoral district either geographically or by policy expertise. Accordingly, the
LDP has changed the rules of PARC afﬁliation. Prior to the 1994 electoralchanges, LDP Diet members could belong to only two PARC committees.
This limitation created specialization. Since 1994, however, the LDP now
permits LDP Diet members to belong to as many PARC committees as theywish. Formal limits are imposed only at the executive level.
Therefore, those like Cowhey and McCubbins who predicted a decline
in specialization were right in essence, but not in form: specialization
through PARC has diminished due to the change in the electoral system; onthe other hand, we did not see PARC’s “demise,” as was also predicted. And,no one is predicting its demise anytime soon. Why not?
Not all Diet members have less need for specialization under the new
system. Those elected from the PR portion of the new system can, and, indeed, may well need to, specialize in speciﬁc, widely dispersed interest
groups, and thus policy areas, exactly because their constituencies are wider
than single-member districts. If SMD candidates can’t win by focusing on asingle narrow stratum of voters, a party can gain votes for itself in the PR
district by catering to speciﬁc, albeit larger, groups: “The PR representatives
also, indeed, increasingly, are variously specialized! For example, a personin the past might have done something to help a speciﬁc postal branch, but
increasingly with just a special connection to post ofﬁces, they could havethe votes to win and so they’re going to somehow strengthen that.” 60 If thechange from multimember districts has provided incentives for singlemember district candidates to specialize less because of the increasing diversity of their smaller constituency, the PR portion has perhaps provided
some incentives for those on the party list to specialize more, if across awider geographical area.
Perhaps most important, our evidence indicates that, as in the case offactions, PARC survives because it did not serve merely an electoral specialization and “credit-claiming” function, and that the other functions Curtis described have continued, and continue also to remain useful to both theparty organization and to the individual Diet members.
59. First interview with A, a junior LDP member of the House of Representatives, Tokyo,
November 30, 2001.
60. Joint interview with three LDP headquarters staff members, Tokyo, June 27, 2002.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 20

20

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)

PARC is an important policy training ground for Diet members to learn
about the wider diversity of policy areas they need to know in the new electoral system and also for them to begin training in a few specialized areas if
they wish to move up in the party and become zoku giin. In other words,
from the Diet member’s perspective, PARC retains important beneﬁts for career advancement. From the LDP perspective, PARC remains a means to develop future party leaders. Executive ranks of PARC committees still maintain restrictive and exclusive rosters.61 These are assignments made byappointment only.
Under the old electoral system, in effect, the LDP maintained a “twotiered system combining both seniority and expertise.” 62 Through service
on the parallel tracks of PARC executive positions and House of Representative committees, and seniority within factions, a pool of talented andknowledgeable leaders was created from which appointments to, ﬁrst, subcabinet and then cabinet positions were made. These leaders over time in the
postwar period managed to know enough about policy in their areas of expertise to ensure that the bureaucracy remained responsive to the needs anddesires of the party and its constituents.
There is no evidence that this function of PARC has been affected by theelectoral system change. Diet members continue to receive training in thewide variety of areas needed to respond to diverse constituencies in SMD
and in PR regional bloc districts to help them gain reelection especially intheir ﬁrst few terms, and also, through advancement to the executive ranks
of PARC divisions, the specialized training they need to advance in theirparty and ultimately government careers.
Another important but little-understood function of PARC has also been
threatened but not eliminated. One of the most neglected and ignored functions of the PARC divisions has been to allow the LDP to maintain party discipline on legislation by an institutionalized structure that makes it virtually
impossible for backbenchers to oppose a policy or have inﬂuence over legislation that the specialized zoku giin want. Simultaneously, it made it difﬁcult for party leaders to impose their will on any policy that the PARC divisions and zoku giin wanted— or likewise to get legislation passed that thezoku giin opposed.
It has scarcely been noted in the literature that the LDP is an unusual
party—it has never had the party whips to persuade backbenchers to support the party’s bills and to enforce discipline. This is particularly surprising given that the multimember district system, unlike, for example, a pure
61. Our thanks to Tatebayashi Masahiko for providing us with copies of these recent
rosters.
62. David Epstein, David Brady, Sadafumi Kawato, and Sharyn O’Halloran, “A Comparative Approach to Legislative Organization: Careerism and Seniority in the United States andJapan,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, No. 3 (July 1997), p. 992.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 21

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

21

proportional representation system, gave centralized party leadership little
leverage over its members because of the personal vote mobilization that thesystem induced. Even in pure SMD systems, the role of party whip was necessary because of the ability of legislators to be elected without total dependence on the national party, thus the role of majority and minority leaders and whips in the U.S. Congress. But even in more centralized British
parliamentary democracy, although backbenchers of the majority party canoccasionally not vote with the government, the party whips provide twoway communication between the prime minister and the rank-and-ﬁle members of Parliament and enforce discipline on government bills.63
In Japan, such two-way communication to a large extent is carried out
via the factions,64 but how is vote cohesion in the party maintained without
whips? To an extent not recognized previously, the PARC structure and LDP
zoku giin serve the role that party whips serve in other parties. First, underthe multimember district system with limited membership service on specialized divisions, all those who weren’t in the relevant division had little sayon or input into bills in that policy area. New members of a division whose
policy ideas differed from that of the ranking leadership of that division, i.e.,
the zoku giin, could and would be booted off the committee. One of our interviewees explained that this had happened to him when he questioned theconstruction of nuclear power plants on the Commerce and Industry Division of PARC. He was kicked out of the division (kubi ni narimashita).65
The PARC structure thus ensured that only legislation favored by and approved by the division executives went to the top leaders of the party for
approval.
Further, informal norms gave top party leaders, including the chair ofPARC, the power to block any bills proposed by backbenchers independently, despite the fact that this contradicts Diet law. Diet law allows bills
to be proposed with the support of 20 members. Yet when the Diet member cited above and others introduced a bill, the House of Representatives’
Secretariat (Shūgiin Jimukyoku) refused to accept it without the seals(hanko) of four party leaders: the secretary-general, the chair of PARC, thechair of the Executive Council, and the chair of the Diet Strategy Commit63. Richard Rose, The Prime Minister in a Shrinking World (Cambridge: Polity Press,
2001), pp. 139 – 43.
64. In fact, the LDP today ofﬁcially justiﬁes factions on this basis. Faction ofﬁces were
nominally closed in December 1994 (though none did). In 1999 the charade ended and the LDP
Party Reform Headquarters accepted factions because of the “important role that factions haveplayed in unifying the will of a large political party containing almost 400 Diet members
and fostering communication within it” and their continuing role in party presidential selection (LDP website http://www.jimin.jp/jimin/english/overview/10.html). See also Kurimoto
Shin’ichirō, Jimintō no kenkyū (Tokyo: Kōbunsha, 1999), pp. 60 – 62.
65. Interview with C.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 22

22

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)

tee. When the member threatened legal action, they said, “Go ahead.” Heshrugged when he mentioned how other Diet members had tried it and theSupreme Court refused to intervene on the grounds that it was an internal
Diet matter.
Now that Diet members can join and participate in any division’s meetings, obviously this function has been loosened somewhat. But with the directors (riji), vice-chairs, and chairs of each division, who are the zoku giin
and zoku-giin-in-training for future careers in the party and Diet, still incharge of the committee, they can nonetheless control the bills that comefrom below to some extent and manage opposition to them. This can help
the prime minister if he gets the cooperation of zoku giin and other party
leaders on his bills; but it can also serve as a means of resistance to his policies and provide leverage to force him to compromise if he does not.66 It also
can provide an effective barrier for reform-oriented backbenchers to inﬂuence policy.
PARC retains an additional beneﬁt for the party. It remains an importantarena of policymaking, the third function identiﬁed by Curtis. Many LDP
policies eventually adopted still “bubble up” from PARC divisions controlled by zoku giin in that area: “Even now the specialist zoku giin exist andare strong.” 67 This is despite the fact that PARC’s role in policymaking has
been partially undermined and challenged by three factors, two unrelated tothe electoral system and the other an indirect consequence of it. First, in certain areas, younger Diet members with particular kinds of specialized backgrounds on certain divisions during the last two to three years have begun toinﬂuence the content of legislation. This is especially true in areas in whichhigh technical expertise is necessary such as ﬁnance and information technology (IT), where older Diet members and bureaucrats can’t compete on
technical knowledge. This has given birth to the phrase “seisaku shinjinrui”(loosely translated as Policy Generation X) to refer to these newly inﬂuential backbenchers.68
The second factor undermining PARC’s policymaking role is that many
policy issues today cross between the specialized jurisdictions of the bureaucracy and the zoku giin.69 The third is a second-order result of the electoral reform to a hybrid SMD-PR system: coalition government. SMD cre66. George Mulgan’s Japan’s Failed Revolution provides a comprehensive argument on
this point.
67. Interview with H, a young PR LDP member of the House of Representatives, Tokyo,
November 30, 2001.
68. Ibid. The term seisaku shinjinrui originated in 1998 in media reports highlighting theprominent policy role played by younger DMs, particularly in the policy response to the ﬁnancial crisis of 1997.
69. First interview with A.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 23

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

23

ates majorities, but PR helps sustain minority parties and thus makes the attainment of a majority party much less likely. Indeed, since electoral reform,
coalition government has become the norm in Japan.
Previously, PARC was important for the opportunity it gave the leadersof its division to exercise direct control over the ultimate content of policy.
Coalition government, however, requires coordination of party leaders todecide policies. In the LDP-CGP-Conservative coalition, several important
issues have been determined in the “Three-Party Conference” of the leadersof these parties instead of bubbling up from within the LDP PARC divisions
as previously. This creates more of a “top-down” dynamic, diminishing the“bottom-up” policymaking role of PARC: “The ‘bottom up’ places of PARC
are still ‘bottom up,’ but after all . . . the things that are being decided at the
top by the coalition are becoming very numerous.70 This Diet member went
on to give examples of where such top-down decision making has caused resentment within the LDP but explained that the majority of bills still comefrom the bureaucracy and go through the “bottom-up” procedures.
Indeed, much of the drama of contemporary Japanese and LDP politics
is now found in the current dynamic of an active and popular prime minister trying to lead on certain issues according to a Westminster (or even“presidential” model) through the Three-Party Conference in conjunction
with his coalition party partners, but coming into conﬂict with the entrenched interests and continued prior policymaking power of the zoku giin
in these PARC divisions. Examples are legion and several recent issues illustrate this pattern, including that of raising health care system premiums
for salarymen. Koizumi ﬁrst induced a reluctant Clean Government Party toagree, and then clashed with the zoku giin in his own party who were closely
tied to the Japan Medical Association which opposed the hike.71 We discuss
the causes and implications of this pattern in our conclusion.
To sum up, rumors of PARC’s death are greatly exaggerated. It hasceased to play the same role in Diet member specialization because there isno need to elect multiple candidates of the same party from a single district.
However, it continues to exist because it plays other nonelectoral roles.
First, it is an important avenue of career advancement and specialization forDiet members and a means of training future leadership for the party. Second, it is an important if now challenged structure for policymaking, and its
structure and norms are still a means for specialized zoku giin to function as“gatekeepers” over the policy and legislative agenda of individual members
and the bureaucracy in the party’s and government’s legislative process.
70. Interview with C.
71. On the increasing centralization of policymaking under Koizumi, see for example“Naikaku shudō kyōka e seisaku kettei ichigenka,” Asahi shinbun, December 8, 2001.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 24

Journal of Japanese Studies

24

30:1 (2004)

Implications
Our ﬁndings present us with a paradoxical response to the question ofwhether electoral reform produced change in the organization and behaviorof the LDP and its representatives, the kind of changes that reformers or political scientists expected. The answer is that it did; and yet the persistenceof institutional features that some expected to disappear also needs to be
explained.
In general, we conﬁrm many of the tendencies predicted by political scientists, particularly the new and changed vote mobilization incentives, thedecline and changing role of factions, and the decline of some forms of specialization in PARC. Disillusioned Japanese citizens and journalists on bothsides of the Paciﬁc who believe that nothing has changed as a result of electoral reform are quite wrong. Institutions and institutional change do matter: kōenkai, factions, and PARC no longer operate the same way or perform
exactly the same roles as they did before electoral reform. And the changes
that have occurred in role and function have been in the direction that electoral theorists would have predicted, given the particular type of new electoral system instituted in Japan.
On the other hand, given these alterations in role and function, the factthat organizations some reformers and analysts thought would disappear
have not withered away is the surprising ﬁnding that requires explanation.
Why is this so, and what do we learn from answering this question about
how to revise theories and predictions of electoral change?
First, concentrating on the electoral system alone as an independent
variable ignores other intraparty organizational and policymaking functions. Our results highlight the importance of multifunctionality and interrelationship in all these institutions—PARC, factions, and kōenkai. Seeing
electoral systems as determinative collapsed these institutions into purely
their electoral functions. However, all of them performed a variety of functions for the party and for the individual politician. PARC was important for“specialization” and vote division. However, PARC was and is also important for members’ career advancement, and party leadership training,
policymaking, and policy discipline. Factions were important for helping
their members’ endorsement and money for elections, but they also performed the function of distribution of party and governmental posts andthus career advancement.
Second, even to the extent that theories and predictions were correct tofocus on changed electoral incentives, most studies focused exclusively on
the need of candidates to cater to the “median voter” and assumed this meant
the need to move away from the personal vote forms of organizations towider-based appeals. They thus ignored an important new incentive of the
SMD-PR mixed system. This is what we call the increased “constituent

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 25

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

25

span” for SMD Diet members. Under the old system, specialization, either
by bringing pork to a geographically concentrated portion of the whole constituency or differentiating oneself on other policy grounds from rival fellow-party candidates,72 could be pronounced for LDP Diet members. The
SMD representative, however, must represent the interests of a larger swathof his constituency.
Specialization no longer pays as well, and politicians must become
more generalist than before. We have seen Diet members responding mostto the increased range and diversity of voters and interests whom they must
now represent. The most important aspect of the switch from multimember
districts to single-member districts and proportional representation so far isgreater incentives to respond to the increase in the standard deviation of therange of constituents that the Diet member must represent through learning
more about many issues and by organizing them through continuing the personal vote. Single-member districts did not eliminate the need for a personalvote, nor is appealing to a wider variety of voters, including a hypothetical“median voter,” inconsistent with maintaining a kōenkai.
The new electoral system itself also has contributed to the continued existence of the kōenkai, as the SMD Diet member needs to get votes from“ticket-splitters.” 73 These voters would not join a local LDP branch. They
don’t vote for the LDP. They don’t necessarily even like the LDP as a party.
The kōenkai is useful to mobilize these voters. Furthermore, SMD Diet
members are reluctant to let the party use their kōenkai for election campaigning. Here the interests of the party and of the politician can come into
open conﬂict. Diet members claim that if their kōenkai are used to support
the LDP proportional representation campaign, they will lose precisely
those ticket-splitters they need to win. Many LDP politicians ﬁnd that theyneed to attract ticket-splitters in order to win election in their single-member
districts, which provides an incentive to maintain kōenkai. Moreover, thismeans that the median voter for the district might or might not identify with
the LDP. Constituency span would have been increased even in the transition from SNTV to SMD. It is increased even more by the necessity of obtaining votes from outside of the party supporters.74
72. On the two different types of “specialization,” see Tatebayashi and McKean, “Vote
Division and Policy Differentiation Strategies.”
73. On predictions of possibilities for ticket-splitting made before the 1996 election, see
Christensen, “The New Japanese Electoral System,” pp. 62 – 64.
74. An additional and perhaps temporary complication comes from the adoption of the“Costa Rican System” of alternation. Because of the change to SMD-PR to SNTV, many politicians found themselves seeking to become the party nominee for a district that also contained
another powerful LDP politician. Nakasone Yasuhiro agreed to forfeit the SMD district in exchange for a guarantee of a permanent listing at the top of the party list in his region. Other
politicians agreed to alternate with their intraparty rival. In other words, Politician A would run

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 26

26

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)

The provision in the new system that allows losers in the SMD election
to be able to gain a seat through the regional PR system strengthens the incentives to continue to mobilize a personal vote through the kōenkai. Because this “insurance” provision ultimately depends on which LDP candidates at the same rank in the PR party list for that region gain the highest
proportion of votes in their SMD district, candidates have every reason tostrengthen their personal vote above and beyond that of their own party supporters. The continuation of draconian restrictions on election campaigningfurther maintains the value of this type of organization as a means to reach
voters.75
Although the SNTV system created specialists of one sort or another forelectoral success as well as governing, the new system requires generalists
for electoral success but specialists for governing. The LDP as a whole,
however, still needs specialists for governing, and PARC exists to train
them. Diet members, especially newer ones, nonetheless are now requiredalso to be generalists to cope with the new and more diverse types of SMD
and regional bloc PR constituency demands. The change in PARC membership rules reﬂects this changed need. This is the reason that PARC did
not simply keep the same rules but altered the way it, de facto, promoted
specialization to serve the needs of politicians to be generalists by allowing
open membership at the nonexecutive level.
Some observers believe that movement toward responding to constituents’ broader policy preferences may already be occurring.76 But to the extent that it has, it has not been through the elimination of the kōenkai and aform of personal vote but rather through its broadening and diversiﬁcation.
As Diet members adapt to the new system, they know that, as the sole LDP
candidate in their constituencies, they must continue to cultivate a personal
vote; but that vote now must come from non-LDP or even nonconservative
supporters in order to gain the larger majority or plurality of votes the SMD
requires. Therefore, they must respond to a broader array of demands andneeds, on a wider range of issues, from kōenkai members. Analysts havetended to see the maintenance of the personal vote and the kōenkai as antithetical to broader-based policy appealing to the median voter; but it is thus
through the continuation of the kōenkai and a new form of personal vote thaton PR and Politician B in SMD in the ﬁrst election, and in the next election, Politician B would
take the PR and Politician A would get the SMD. This meant that even the PR politician—looking ahead to the SMD race—would want to maintain a kōenkai. In March 2003, the LDP
decided that no new cases of Costa Rican alternation would be allowed although this was notexpected to go down smoothly with those expecting to “inherit” incumbent “Costa Rican” seats(Yomiuri shinbun, July 14, 2003).
75. See Christensen, “The Effect of Electoral Reform,” for this argument in the 1996
election.
76. Shugart, “Electoral ‘Efﬁciency.’”

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 27

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

27

such movement toward broader-based policies and the median voter may betaking place.
A third area for reﬁning our theories of systemic change is the secondorder effects of electoral reform. The diversity of cross-party support for theincumbent under the new system is one example. The electoral system inplace, however, also creates a much greater likelihood of coalition governments than would a pure SMD system. And, the existence of a coalition government is critically important for the policymaking process. To the extent
that PARC’s role in policymaking has diminished at all, it is due to the increased importance of top party leaders in making policy and their ability tosidestep the zoku giin. This increased centralization need and opportunity isa direct result of the greater coordination needs in a coalition government.77
Finally, we should get away from the implicit assumption that the consequences of a newly adopted electoral system can be predicted completelyfrom its logical consequences in the abstract. New electoral systems do notappear de novo in established democracies, but too many electoral analyses
posit a new electoral system’s effects in the abstract, as if they were being
imposed in a vacuum rather than grafted onto entrenched organizations created for a previous system.
Although distinct, these ﬁndings are largely consistent in orientation
with an important and increasingly prominent research program in the social sciences, namely, historical institutionalism.78 It is important to notethat our argument here goes beyond the obvious assertions that there aretransition periods in which older habits and patterns temporarily persist, i.e.,
inertia and the “stickiness” of institutions and their “sunk costs.” One problem with this type of assertion, identiﬁed by Reed and Thies, is the lack of
speciﬁcity concerning how long the transition period lasts and how transitions actually take place.79
77. See Robert Pekkanen, “Japan’s New Politics: The Case of the NPO Law,” Journal ofJapanese Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Winter 2000), pp. 111– 46, for a detailed example of how thisinﬂuences policymaking. Pekkanen maintains that the “NPO Law” of 1998 passed the Diet inlarge measure because of the exigencies of a coalition government.
78. See especially Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism, and Mahoney and Rueschemeyer,eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. We also ﬁnd our arguments
congruent with the new writings in the ﬁeld of American political development highlighting“intercurrence.” See Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, “Institutions and Intercurrence:
Theory Building in the Fullness of Time,” Nomos, Vol. 38 (1996), pp. 111– 46. From a different perspective, see also Katō Shūjirō, Nihon no senkyo (Tokyo: Chūkō Shinsho, 2003),
pp. 172 –73.
79. For example, Thies, while admitting that the 1996 election did not exactly live up to
the hypotheses of reformers, asserts that future trends will be different: “Just because campaign
strategies did not change in the ﬁrst election under the new rules does not mean they will neverchange.” (Thies, “Changing How the Japanese Vote,” p. 104.) A valid point, but one that stillassumes the change must be in the direction and form predicted. On this point, also see Reedand Thies, “The Consequences of Electoral Reform,” pp. 402 –3.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 28

28

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)

Our assertions are more fundamental and related to these last points
raised by Reed and Thies. First, there is a path dependence to organizational
development. By this we mean that beyond simple inertia, prior choices oforganizational formats to fulﬁll functions under one system will at least partially shape and constrain the choices of organizational functions under the
new system. Second, organizational forms from previously used systems
will persist because they perform more than just electoral functions even in
the new system. Third, politicians may and are likely to adapt those familiar forms to new rational purposes in the new system. They make “embedded choices”— decisions made under constraints and circumstances in part
created by the extant system and inﬂuenced by the temptation to reshape existing organizations to new purposes rather than create new ones from whole
cloth.
The continuance of kōenkai is a good example. If the current electoral
system were to be created tabula rasa, it is doubtful whether any politician
would establish a kōenkai. However, kōenkai did exist when the electoral
system was established. Under the new rules, too, any politician with akōenkai already established would ﬁnd it worthwhile to maintain it, for thereasons we argued above. In other words, some personal vote was still useful and the existing kōenkai a way to maintain it. The decision to continue
kōenkai was an “embedded choice.” Existing organizations are as likely
to be adapted to somewhat different functions in a new electoral system, as
old organizational forms are to be scrapped and totally new ones created.
Changed systems and incentives do not necessarily require replacement oforganizations, merely their adaptation.80
Thus, our point about the relative lack of organizational change as a result of electoral reform obviously does not imply a lack of change, per se.
Even where organizations continue to exist, the functions they have performed have been altered in many cases to adapt to the new incentives.
Changes in function need not always involve the disappearance of organizational forms.81
The persistence of organizations, however, means the creation of contradictory incentive pressures on Diet members and the party itself. If the
new electoral system provides incentives to become more policy-oriented, it
80. Thies seems to acknowledge this where he sees factions developing increasing policy/ideological orientation, i.e., persisting but performing a different role. See Thies, “Changing How the Japanese Vote,” p. 107.
81. Obviously our argument also does not extend beyond the changes wrought or not
wrought by the electoral system. Changes due to the impact of Japan’s role in the international
economy—such as those described by T. J. Pempel in “Regime Shift: Japanese Politics in a
Changing World Economy,” Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer 1997),
pp. 333 – 61, and in Regime Shift (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998)—may still transformparty and political incentives in other ways.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 29

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

29

also provides legislators a means to retain a personal vote to mobilize nonparty supporters to win in the SMD or in the PR portion; if it induces Diet
members to become, and the party to encourage, generalists to cater tobroader constituency demands than before, at the same time advancing in
the party and having inﬂuence on policymaking requires them to become
specialists within PARC and also to become more closely tied to particularinterests; if it undermines the electoral functions of factions for the individual Diet member, it also does nothing to undermine the importance of factions in determining future party and governmental positions. Part of the“embedded choices” of change made to adjust to incentives of the new electoral system are those that may perpetuate prior organizations. And contrary
incentives of change and continuity for each Diet member can also result in
the creation of contrary interests within the party as a whole.
Conclusion: Adaptation, Persistence, and ResistanceOur ﬁndings of change, incomplete transformation, and adaptation havenumerous implications for the study of the LDP and Japanese politics andpolicymaking.82 In this conclusion, we trace three major implications. The
ﬁrst is that the party and its representatives have, on the one hand, rapidly
and ﬂexibly adapted to the changed system—for example, shifting the purposes of kōenkai to the new SMD system with one representative and abroader “constituency span,” and opening up PARC divisions to all members to allow them to serve wider constituency interests. Yet, while so doing, they have preserved prior functions of their constituent organizations
by continuing to serve needed functions even under the new system—
retaining PARC divisions as training grounds for future party and governmental leadership posts to ensure a cadre of politicians able to handle the demands of policymaking and the bureaucracy, or retaining factions as ameans of coordinating and distributing career positions within the party andgovernment. Whatever future advances the DPJ may (or may not) make,these features will continue to ensure that as long as the LDP does not split,
it will remain either the governing party or the main alternative to it.83 This
82. Our ﬁndings should be tested comparatively. As a comparison to Japan, it would beinteresting to see how politicians in other democracies that went from more party-oriented andlarger constituencies adapted their vote mobilization and organizations to SMD. If we are rightboth about the path dependence and adaptability of these vote mobilization organizations andprocedures and the “constituency span” of SMD systems as an important variable, we would
expect differences in adaptations even when the new systems move to more similar electoral
systems. We plan comparative research along these lines, for example, comparisons with Italy
and New Zealand.
83. Moreover, Ethan Scheiner argues that one of the LDP’s traditional major advantages
over the opposition parties was its ability to recruit experienced politicians from local politics
and former officials from the bureaucracy who were “quality” candidates and then give them

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 30

30

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)

potential quiet ﬂexibility of response both to the general constituency
incentives of the new electoral system and to the continuing specialized interests of the old is the “discreet charm of the LDP” to which our subtitle
refers.
Further, our ﬁndings indicate that the long-term trend that began at leastin the 1980s toward greater politician inﬂuence in policymaking and diminished bureaucratic inﬂuence,84 due in large measure to the politicians’ enhanced expertise gained as zoku giin, is likely to continue despite the electoral reform incentives for representatives to also become generalists in
responding to wider constituency demands. The continuation of PARC, its
perpetuation as a training ground for career advancement in the party, andconsequently also the continuation of the production of experts who cancompete with and manage bureaucrats on policy issues will likely see tothat. The continuation of kōenkai, to the extent that it contributes to incumbency advantage for candidates in the SMD districts, will only reinforce themaintenance of politician inﬂuence.
Second, our ﬁndings contain implications for questions about the balance of power between individual LDP legislators and the party— clearlysalient for contemporary Japanese politics. Even with the new electoral system, the persistence of PARC and the zoku giin means also the continuationof a form of government that is not cabinet government. By this we meanthat politicians are engaged in governing, but that cabinet members do notserve as executives in the same sense as in the British Westminster system.
Thus, as one of our interviewees put it succinctly, “those in the LDP who
have power don’t go into government,” and since ministerial posts are primarily seen as career capstones, they are changed frequently and ministers
are people who have no real power.85 We also note that bills drawn up by thecabinet cannot be introduced to the Diet unless they have been approved by
the LDP’s Executive Council. Instead, cabinet-drafted bills are subject to review by the LDP’s PARC. Relevant divisions of this body get opinions fromeven more policymaking experience and expertise as they ascended the LDP ladder, comparedto the fewer and seemingly inexperienced candidates recruited by the opposition parties. See
Ethan Scheiner, “Democracy Without Competition: Opposition Failure in One-Party Dominant Japan” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 2001), and “The Underlying Roots of Opposition
Failure in Japan: Clientelism  Centralization  Local Opposition Failure,” Middlebury College Rohatyn Center for International Affairs Working Paper Series, 2003. We have added thenotion here of intra-LDP acquired training and expertise.
84. There has been a large literature on this phenomenon in Japanese politics in the lasttwo decades. As a sample of some of the earliest works, see Muramatsu Michio, Sengo Nihonno kanryōsei (Tokyo: Tōyō Keizai Shinpōsha, 1981); Michio Muramatsu and Ellis S. Krauss,“Bureaucrats and Politicians in Policymaking: The Case of Japan,” American Political Science
Review, Vol. 78, No. 1 (March 1984); Satō and Matsuzaki, Jimintō Seiken; and Inoguchi, “Zokugiin” no kenkyū.
85. Interview with C.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 31

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

31

interest groups and the bureaucracy. They can also modify draft bills. Afterthey have screened it, a draft bill is sent to the Policy Deliberation Commission, and then to the General Council, nominally the LDP’s decisionmaking body, for approval. Only after this is the bill presented to the Diet.86
The perpetuation of organizational forms such as PARC divisions, however weakened or challenged, also means that neither is Japan a typical formof “party government.” We have claimed above that the party whip role aswell as the policy formulation role are played by the zoku giin structure.87
Further, there is no centralized party leadership with complete control over
district-level nominations. The LDP, for example, allowed prefectural anddistrict branches to ﬁrst nominate candidates even after the electoral transition.88 This very much decreases the leverage of the party vis-à-vis the individual member. By contrast, British prime ministers have substantial powers over renomination even of incumbents and have been known to warn
backbenchers not to “bark” too much or “get vicious” on opposing thegovernment on votes, because such a politician may ﬁnd that “he may not
get his license renewed when it falls due,” 89 implying that British prime
ministers can deny the recalcitrant politician his party’s nomination nexttime out.
Given these trends, candidates elected from SMDs may have the potential to become even more independent of party leadership. But the inﬂuenceof party leaders over individual Diet members may be enhanced by coalition
86. Apparently, prior inspection by the party didn’t begin until 1962. See Tsutomu Nishioka, “Reforms Upset LDP Applecart,” Daily Yomiuri On Line, March 18, 2001 (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20020318wo01.htm, accessed April 20, 2003). Today this practice receives considerable criticism in the press. See, for example, “Pork-barreling Still Rampant,”
The Japan Times, July 2, 2002.
87. “Party discipline” functions may have been intentionally inherent in the practice fromthe beginning and not just an inadvertent consequence of it. According to Takeshi Uemura,“Bill Screening System Should Go,” Daily Yomiuri On Line, February 15, 2002 (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20020215wo05.htm, accessed April 20, 2003), the origins of the systemdate to a request by Akagi Munenori, then chairman of the LDP General Council, in February 1962 to Chief Cabinet Secretary Ōhira Masayoshi that all cabinet-drafted bills be referredto the General Council before they were presented to the cabinet. This was justiﬁed on the
grounds that without it, both opposition party and LDP Diet members could delay bills on the
ﬂoor and create confusion in the Diet, as had apparently happened previously.
88. Cox, Rosenbluth, and Thies, “Electoral Reform and the Fate of Factions,” p. 43.
89. Rose, The Prime Minister in a Shrinking World, p. 142. British parties do not have primaries for candidates, which is one important factor. Scholars of American politics have examined conditions under which the party exercises more or less control over legislators. Reliance on party label (instead of personal vote) increases the dependence of legislators on theparty, and parity in the balance of power between the parties does the same. The implications
for Japanese politics are clear. The power of kōenkai will diminish party control, but the LDP’s
inability to hold a dominant majority will enhance it. On the American case, see John H.
Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 32

32

Journal of Japanese Studies

30:1 (2004)

government, the party list portion of the new mixed electroal system, themore party-centered and -controlled ﬁnancing of elections brought about by
campaign ﬁnance reform, and television’s contribution to the inﬂuence ofthe prime minister.
Third, these contrary incentives are also related to an important shift in
the locus of intraparty conﬂict. We suggest that the high level of conﬂict in
the LDP in the ﬁrst few years of the twenty-ﬁrst century reﬂects a shift fromvertical cleavages (i.e., along factional lines) to horizontal cleavages (i.e.,
vested interests’ “forces of resistance” versus reformers). This can be understood in part due to the nature of the transformation of the LDP organizational structure. Surprisingly, it has gone unnoticed or misunderstood, to
our knowledge, that current conﬂict in the LDP is a policy conﬂict. Proponents of the electoral reform in 1993 argued that it would bring about a twoparty system in which candidates ran on policy platforms. That has not happened, nor is it likely to anytime soon. However, the most important debate
in the LDP, and one that is bringing about real conﬂict, is a policy issue: reform. Simply because one side is identiﬁed by opponents or critics with aconservative or self-interested unwillingness to change to address a pressing
crisis, we should not lose sight of the fact that these are policy disagreements. Comparing the contemporary ﬁssure lines with those of the intraLDP personal power conﬂicts of the past (e.g., the struggle between Ōhira
Masayoshi and Fukuda Takeo) should make this abundantly clear.
The changes in three organizational elements examined above can explain the shift in the locus of conﬂict. The persistence of kōenkai permits
SMD incumbents to have a secure power base, meaning they are less vulnerable to party (or prime minister) sanctions. The reformist Prime Minister Koizumi also was ineffective in enhancing his power by eliminating factions, as we discussed above. Finally, the continued strength of PARC has
been critical to the strength of zoku giin, particularly those who represent“vested interests” and oppose either the prime minister or reform legislationin general. It is no accident that the main lines of intraparty cleavage within
the current LDP are no longer just the “vertical” ones of personal factional
strife, but also the “horizontal” ones of leadership versus the resistant remaining specialized interests within the party. It is not simply an issue ofparty control or lack thereof; the type of conﬂict has also been transformed.
Thus, two contrary hypothetical scenarios for the LDP’s future emerge
from our ﬁndings. The ﬁrst is that the adaptation and innovation of the LDP
to the new electoral system—preserving its policymaking expertise evenwhile responding within the new districts to wider constituency demands,
the training of “generalists” as well as experts to process policy and checkbureaucratic inﬂuence, the diminution of factional inﬂuence, and the continued disadvantages faced by the opposition parties, combined with the

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 33

Krauss and Pekkanen: Electoral Reform

33

possibility that future prime ministers can manage their media image—will
allow the LDP to maintain its dominance into the foreseeable future. The
new internal policy conﬂicts could remain managed and manageable, andtherefore generally be no more threatening to LDP dominance than the perennial old factional battles were.
There is an alternative scenario that is equally possible, however,namely that the internal policy tension described and the kind of political
battles we have witnessed between more reformist leaders and entrenchedspecialized interests along essentially policy lines persist and intensify.
Eventually some of these policy cleavages may cumulate, potentially splitting the party and ushering in a recombination of the party system. It is impossible to tell at this point which of these scenarios, or which combination,
will eventuate.
Ultimately, it is important to understand exactly how and why organizational forms and practices are persisting or changing shape and function
after electoral reform to understand what this “transition period” in Japanese politics means. If it is a mere way station on the road to the kind ofelectoral and party politics and policymaking theoretically produced bypure SMD and pure PR systems, then the battles between Prime Minister
Koizumi and the zoku giin will have been of only passing and temporary signiﬁcance. If, however, these forms persist and adapt and change, but do notdisappear, even while their functions may be altered, then the current patterns, and the possible consequences that can ﬂow from them, may be with
us for some time, despite and because of the new electoral system. The conﬂict within the LDP and within each of its Diet members between changing
individual and party incentives and persistent organizational forms with differing incentives may well continue.
Under the old system, the prime minister was very much a creature of
the party and its factional balance and zoku inﬂuence.90 A continuation of
the 1955 system or an electoral reform that had not produced any change at
all might well not have produced a prime minister and coalition government
trying to change, and succeeding even as much or little as they have; an electoral reform that produced what the reformers intended or the type of party
organization, electoral mobilization, and party organization political science theorists tell us SMD and PR systems in the abstract tend to produce
would have resulted in even more change. The disillusioned and frustrated
are wrong to think that no change has occurred; the theorists are wrong tothink change would occur necessarily in the forms they predicted.
Put another way, the current “no man’s land” of Japanese politics—
neither the old “1955 system” nor a real Westminster model of parliamen90. See, for example, Hayao, The Japanese Prime Minister, pp. 96 –121 and 146 – 49.

G&S Typesetters PDF proof

01-J2906 1/9/04 6:27 AM Page 34

Journal of Japanese Studies

34

30:1 (2004)

tary politics as in England—and the highly conﬂictual prime minister
versus zoku giin battles may not be because nothing has changed since theelectoral reform, but because it has, but in a particular, adaptive manner,
shaped by politicians making strategic choices while embedded in an existing context.
University of California, San Diego, and Middlebury College

G&S Typesetters PDF proof