Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to formulate an explanation of the transformation of the decision structure for educational policy in the central government through analysis of the policy process related to the diversification of the providers of education focusing on the discussion between the Cabinet Office (Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy [CEFP] and Council for Regulatory Reform [CRR]) and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). Despite the dramatic changes to the public education system related to this issue, which led to the diversification of the providers of education, that is to say, the government allowing companies and nonprofit organizations (NPOs) to set up schools within a limited special zone for structural reform, previous research has not identified how that idea was born, what kind of actors were involved, what sort of influence they brought to bear on the policy process, and finally, how the policy was decided. But there can be no doubt that a meaningful task in educational research is to analyze what factors determine the policy-making process. So this paper has examined the logic of each actor's opinion, the various controversial points of contention, and the adopted policy-making method concerned with lifting the ban on the private sector's participation in public education. As a result, the paper offers the following clarification of the political dynamics and mechanism of the policy process. First, MEXT expressed a negative attitude toward the establishment of schools by the private sector because they value the public nature of education as well as continuity and stability for education. Their top concern was not "how schools are managed" but "who manages schools." The second, CEFP and CRR consistently maintained a focus on diversifying the providers of education through structural reforms. They perceived "educational practices" to be similar to any other public service such as those which provide energy, communication, or transportation. So all these fields, including education, were targeted for regulatory reforms. Their logic is characterized by a focus on "administration" and "accountability" rather than "ex ante regulation." Thirdly, questions of constitutionality about financial aid to private educational institutions become a big point of contention. The subject of discussion is Article 89 of the Constitution, which states, "No public money or other property shall be expended or appropriated for the use, benefit or maintenance of any religious institution or association, or for any charitable, educational or benevolent enterprises not under the control of public authority." There was a divergence in opinion between CRR and MEXT surrounding the constitutional interpretation by Cabinet Legislation Bureau concerned with the legislative intent of the latter clause of Article 89 and the meaning and requirements implied by the phrase "under the control of public authority". This remains an important issue. The case study in this paper offers the following implication. The decision structure for educational policy in the central government has been clearly transformed after the strengthening of the cabinet's functions by reorganization of the central government ministries. From the perspective of this author, turf-minded policy processes adopted by each government office, the custom of consensus-building practiced by the Central Education Council and the values in "sub-governments" are confined to the distant past. There are Cabinet-led policymaking efforts which support the Prime Minister's leadership and coordinate policies among the different policy domains.
