The 1981 Administrative Reform in Japan

Abstract

In 1981 theJapanese government took steps reform national finances and the administrative system, so as to deal effectively with future tasks affecting the country and the people.' The immediate and urgent problem facing the government was the abnormally high and growing rate of government indebtedness. For example, in the 1980 financial year the government was scheduled issue bonds equivalent US $63 billion, which far exceeded the total of $47 billion for Britain, France, Italy, the United States, and West Germany together. In the 1980 budget, one third of the general account expenditure was covered by bond issues and 12% of the budget was for debt service. In the past this problem was not so acute. Before the oil shock and with a high rate of economic growth, Japan was able finance increased public expenditure without any major difficulties. Now the era of high growth is past, yet demands for subsidies, social welfare, and defense expenditures are still strong. For example, the three k'sthe rice subsidy scheme (kome), Japan National Railways (NR) (kokutetsu), and the national health service (kokzmin kenkohokenz) are seen as areas in particular need of reform. It is not only a problem of financial reform but also administrative reform. For example, business believed it had proved its efficiency by having successfully weathered the oil shock and the world recession, and thought that the government should put its house in order. The need for reform was accepted by sections of the bureaucracy, including the Finance Ministry (which bracketed it with expenditure cuts) and the Administrative Management Agency (AMA). The AMA is responsible for the structure, inspection, efficiency, and reform of government organizations, and its duties included the first ad hoc Administrative Reform Council. Administrative reform was