農業政策の形成プロセス

先進国比較にみる日本の特徴

抄録

This report clarifies the features of the agricultural policy formation process in Japan by comparing it with the processes in the United States and the European Union. Concretely, it is clarified through a verification of examples in international negotiations and domestic policy (i.e., how the United States had Japan open the rice market and establish the 1996 agricultural bill, and how the EU coped with UR agricultural negotiations and realized the CAP reform in1992). About the US : There are meetings at which the Cabinet members thoroughly deliberate on national strategies. The Fast-Truck releases the government from pressure by Congress or agricultural organizations in international negotiations so that the government can negotiate flexibly. With a change of power, civilians are employed as high-ranking government officials, and many talented persons participate in the policy planning, which can therefore be innovative. Agricultural organizations exert very strong influence on the policy formation process through their lobbying. About the EU : The transparency of the policy formation process is very high. The term of the meetings at which representatives of the EU member countries argue is not determined, enabling them to conduct thorough arguments. Administration (DGVI) has intense leadership. Because the agricultural administration bureaucrats of the EU create a policy theoretically, it will become a rational policy. Because the EU receives no requests directly from the agricultural organizations of each country, it can form a policy flexibly and objectively. About Japan : The organization for creating clear national strategy is not established. Administration bureaucrats have become unable to make positive and creative proposals. The transparency of the policy formation process is very low. From the viewpoint of the influence of the agricultural organization on a policy formation process, Japan can make policy planning more objectively than the United States can, but less objectively and flexibly than the European Union can.