>>over time the Cabinet Office has been gradually
strengthened, in size and capabilities. Has that process stagnated under Kan (my guess is "yes")?

Yes, it has apparently. The main Cabinet Office innovation under the DPJ - the National Strategy Bureau
- never eventuated (it requires legislation to set it up), and what was designed as its predecessor organisation - the National Strategy Office - is virtually defunct, with private sector members abandoning it. The Kan government has either not bothered or not wanted to utilise its potential. Kan seems to be making a lot of the decisions unilaterally, and consulting no one.

A stronger Naikaku-fu was one aspect of stronger institutional policy capability, as were the cabinet committees, both designed to provide greater coordination and leadership across issues. But, as I said in my earlier posting, the early ambitions for these bodies have not been realised.

Another problem was Hatoyama's lack of control over his cabinet ministers, with different ministers saying different things, and Ozawa's de facto control over any of the policy issues that required government spending.

AGM
UNSW Canberra