Since I seem to be cited as the source of some alleged belief that a balance of
power between politicans and bureaucrats began to shift with "no identifiable
(changes in) resources or rules" following the (first) Oil Shock, I guess I
should start by asking where I allegedly said any such thing. I've written a
number of pieces dealing with my sense of how Japanese politics has been similar
and different over the postwar period but I surely can't think of any place
where I suggested anything quite so simplistic--although I have said on many
occassions that politicians have become far more active in a variety of policy
problems over time, and simultaneously, that bureaucrats (and bureaucratic
agencies) have also been less centrally in control of many policy areas. But I
can't think of any way in which I implied that these two processes--individually
or in relationship to one another--occurred without any shifts in resources or
rules.
I certainly believe there is some genuine merit in exploring the empirical
question of whether politicians began exercising their (formal) authority in new
ways but I have never questioned the formal authority of politicians to exercise
(through the legislature and/or thru the LDP) formal control over the civil
service. And indeed, that political power was exercised in many ways--as I
suggested in a 1974 article in AJPS--including the exercise of control over
promotions within the civil service virtually from the time that the LDP was
created in 1955.
I also think it central to realize that the alleged politician vs. bureaucrat
debate is one that I have always argued takes place within the broader
structural context of long term conservative rule, i.e. there are far greater
power struggles going on between the (relatively unified front of) conservatives
on the one hand and the left/socialist/labor camp on the other. Arguments and
differences of opinion and so forth among politicians and bureaucrats are far
more typically over means and specifics than over broad goals and policy
directions. To imply that bureaucrats and LDP politicians wanted wildly
different things is to misunderstand their relationship completely.
And finally, I have tried to argue that from the time of the Occupation, many
conflicts within conservative circles have been between mixed groups, pitting
some politicians and some bureaucrats against other politicians and other
bureaucrats. Much depends on the specific issue and the functional,
geographical, and personal interests of those involved. But on very few
issues--either before or after the Oil Shock--can I think of clearcut, two-sided
divisions pitting politicians vs. bureaucrats.
But all of this having been said, do I think there was a shift in the relative
influence of bureaucrats and (conservative ) politicians following the first Oil
Shock and the breakdown of Bretton Woods? Of course, but it wasn't without any
shift in the relative resources of the two (hardly monolithic) groups. Just as a
few examples, the change in the value of the yen and the shift in monetary
policy made it much tougher for the MOF to retain its tight controls over
business investment decisions, and capital became far more readily available
without MOF strings. Changes in the rules over foreign direct investment in
Japan worked in similar ways re. MITI abilities over many sectors of industry,
etc. etc. And economic success over the preceeding decade and a half for the
nation as a whole changed consumer/citizen/voter preferences toward regulation,
economic growth and a whole host of other things that affected bureaucratic
powers.
And similarly, as the number of parties increased and the appeals of the various
small niche parties cut into LDP vote totals--for the party as a whole and for
the fortunes of individual politicians--there were many more incentives for
politicians to take a greater interest in a wider variety of potentially
electorally salient issues than they had in the past. Pork barrel opportunities
expanded--see Tanaka's colonization of MPT through radio and t.v. licenses for
example, or the increased actions by folks like Fukuda to expand Japanese
economic ties with SEA, and the more generic involvement of LDP politicians in
various policy specific zoku. But such increased involvements were hardly zero
sum games between politicians and bureaucrats on two sides of a fence. As in the
case of zoku, for example, there were many instances of common interest between
the LDP zoku politicians and the bureaucratic agencies concerned with their
areas of alleged expertise (defense is a prime example; but Tanaka's activities
in MPT and also in MITI were not always objected to by the bureaucrats
involved.)
In short, I think much of the alleged debate about the balance of power and
influence between politicians and bureaucrats is a silly misspecification of the
real way in which postwar Japanese politics has gone. There have obviously been
various tensions between individuals on two very different career tracks, with
two very different sets of incentives for their career enhancement, and with
very different structural constraints and incentives guiding them both. But for
the most part, these guys are all "fellow conservatives;" specific positions on
specific issues will rarely follow simple "bureaucrat vs. politician" lines; and
the shifts in the relative power and influence (not authority) of the two groups
did indeed favor politicians starting in the early to mid-1970s. But this shift
hardly took place without real shifts in power resources and capabilities on
both sides, as a result both of exogenous and endogenous changes.
Where does this leave me on PA arguments? Clearly I side in part with John
Campbell's point that many of those using PA to "analyze" the balance of power
between bureaucrats and politicians have really misspecified the literature on
the subject (isn't it important to read more than just the title or first
paragraph of a piece to characterize it?), and have grossly oversimplified past
interpretations, both of the relationship between politicians and bureaucrats
and of the nuances that are involved in their day-to-day, and historical,
influences over specific policies. But far more importantly, I think the zero
sum debates that have been created: who's more powerful, politicians or
bureaucrats? is inherently boring and irrelevant in the face of a far more
complex set of questions concerning the sources and balance of power in Japan.

T.J. Pempel