In 2011, the Nonprofit Organization (NPO) Law and donation taxation system in Japan was significantly revised, loosening tax privilege conditions affecting NPOs and motivating citizens to donate. This paper examines the policy processes involved in this revision through the advocacy coalition framework. After the 2009 change of government, the advocacy coalition around the LDP’s Tax System Research Council and Budget Bureau of Ministry of Finance lost power. The DPJ’s advocacy coalition then put the NPO Law revision on the agenda, promoting “New Public Commons” policies. The DPJ’s advocacy coalition proceeded with “policy-oriented learning,” involving experts and NPO members. A draft of the revision was completed; however, the Diet, which has been divided since 2010, impeded the DPJ “New Public Commons” coalition’s revision of the NPO Law. Then, the NPO cross-party Diet members’ caucus reunited. The advocacy coalition of the “New Public Commons,” the Diet members’ caucus, and the Association of Prefectural Governors resumed “policy-oriented learning,” increasing revision topics. The House of Representatives’ Legislative Bureau, the Parliamentary Secretary for Internal Affairs and members of C’s (Coalition for Legislation to Support Citizens’ Organizations) also participated as “policy brokers.” After the Great East Japan Earthquake, the NPO Law was revised due to this “policy-oriented learning.”

View full abstract

This article aims to study whether deliberative democracy and citizen’s knowledge was realized in the discussions for legislative measures addressing intractable diseases. My analysis selects the discourse of bureaucrats, experts and especially representatives of patient advocacy groups from the proceedings of the Committee for Measures for Intractable Diseases as well as of its associated working group. I divided the time that Committee for Measures for Intractable Diseases had been held into three periods. The second and third periods are analyzed in this article. Some current problems facing those with intractable diseases were pointed out in the second period. Several drafts of policies for problem solving were discussed in the third period, and differences among the patients, bureaucrats and experts were uncovered. The results of the analysis indicate that the bureaucrats provided a forum to discuss changes in the policy for measures addressing intractable diseases and got to claim democratic legitimacy. That is, the bureaucrats tried to take into consideration some expert and life knowledge. However, it is questionable whether the interaction among the stakeholders truly produced citizen’s knowledge.

View full abstract