Public Administration in Japan: History and Problems
| Date | 01 June 1982 |
| Published date | 01 June 1982 |
| Author | Kiyoaki Tsuji |
| DOI | 10.1177/002085238204800202 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Public
Administration
in
Japan:
History
and
Problems
UDC :
35.071
(52)
by
Kiyoaki
TSUJI,
Professor,
International
Christian
University,
Tokyo
I.
HISTORICAL
DEVELOPMENT
Since
the
formation
of
the
national
state
as
a
result
of
the
Meiji
Restoration,
Japanese
public
administration
has
undergone
three
sta-
ges
of
development.
The
First
Stage
(1867-1889)
For
the
purpose
of
integrating
the
past
feudal
system
a
strongly
centralized
govern-
ment
known
as
Dajokan
was
established
in
1868.
Under
the
Emperor
were
three
minis-
ters :
the
Prime
Minister
(Dajo
Daijin)
who
assumed
overall
responsibility
for
the
govern-
ment ;
the
Minister
of
the
Left
(Sa
Daijin)
who
acted
as
an
advisor
on
government
ordinances;
and
the
Minister
of
the
Right
(U
Daijin)
who
supervised
the
operation
of
the
ministries.
The
Daijins
were
assisted
by
several
Councillors
(Sangi)
who
were
vested
with
decision-making
power
concerning
policies
and
their
execution.
The
judicial
power
was
subordinate
to
the
executive
power
until
the
Supreme
Court
(Dai-
shin
In)
was
established
in
1875.
A
charac-
teristic
feature
of
this
stage
was
that
the
power
of
the
State
was
not
clearly
divided
into
legis-
lative,
executive,
and
judicial.
All
activities
of
the
government
were
based
on
the
Fukoku,
i.e.
the
proclamation
of the
Dajokan,
a
kind
of
Imperial
ordinance,
and
there
was
no
law
in
the
modem
democratic
sense.
Criticism
of
the
government
and
any
movement
for
democratic
rights
were
pro-
hibited
by
Imperial
ordinances.
The
fact
that
most
government
officials
were
recruited
from
the
former
Samurai
(warrior)
class
contributed
to
the
persistence
of
the
old
social
status
derived
from
a
rigid
feudalistic
hierarchy.
This
resulted
in
a
strong
sense
of
Kanson
Minpi
(placing
the
government
above
the
people).
The
government
also
exercised
strong
leader-
ship
in
the
economic
sphere.
Public
admin-
istration
was
permeated
by
absolutism,
the
Home
and
Finance
Ministries
being
the
most
powerful
of
all.
Finally,
the
Civil
Service
did
not
have
an
open
entrance
examination
system
until
1887;
government
offices
before
then
were
filled
by
members
of
several
major
clans
which
had
contributed
to
the
success
of
the
Meiji
Restoration.
The
Second
Stage
(1889-1945)
In
1889,
through
the
promulgation
of
the
Meiji
Constitution,
a
limited
monarchy
model-
led
on
that
of
Bismarck’s
Germany
was
adopted.
The
Dajokan
system
was
abolished
and
the
Imperial
House
and
the
Cabinet
were
established.
It
may
be
added,
however,
that
in
Japan
the
tendency
towards
centralization
was
stronger
than
in
Germany.
The
Imperial
House,
which
was
the
legislative
body,
adopted
a
bicameral
system:
the
House
of
Peers
and
the
House
of
Representatives.
The
courts
seemed
to
be
given
an
independent
position,
but
they
were
required
to
judge
in
the
name
of
the
Emperor.
The
executive
power
itself
was,
needless
to
say,
under
the
direct
control
of the
Emperor.
Even
although
power
was
divided
amongst
the
legislative,
executive
and
judicial
bodies,
comprehensive
ruling
power
over
these
three
bodies
was
still
in
the
hands
of
the
Emperor.
This
overall
power
might
be
reflected,
for
example,
in
the
Emperor’s
direct
command
of
the
armed
forces.
The
Imperial
House
could
not
discuss
this,
for
it
was
the &dquo;
prerogative &dquo;
of
the
Supreme
Command.
Furthermore,
the
Emperor
could
make
and
approve
a
budget
or
enact
a
law
by
Imperial
ordinances
without
prior
consent
of
the
House.
Since
matters
concerning
government
departments
and
per-
sonnel
were
governed
by
Imperial
ordinances,
and
not
by
laws
passed
in
the
House,
public
administrators
were
naturally
referred
to
as
&dquo; the
Emperor’s
officials
&dquo;,
and
served
under
very
strict
regulations
demanding
loyalty.
Personnel
administration
was
first
established
at
this
time.
Two
open
civil
service
examina-
tions
were
held
for
higher
and
lower
grade
positions.
Both
examinations
tested
mainly
the
legal
knowledge
of the
candidates,
rather
than
their
general
education
or
administrative
ability.
Since
both
law-making
and
imple-
To continue reading
Request your trial