As in many other countries, the COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted graver impacts on women in Japan, as exemplified by a spike of suicide cases across the age groups in 2020. This article argues that the pandemic has had a greater negative effect on Japanese women, because of the ways in which the capitalist economic system and the state governing system that manages the national economy are organized. To do so, the article re-assess the discussion of governmentality by introducing the notion of ‘necropolitics’ set out by Achille Mbembe that sheds light on a fact that the development of capitalism could not be achieved without violent accumulation in the colonized areas in which colonized people were subjugated to the ‘power to let die’. The article particularly pays attention to ‘gender’, through which women are located within the family by taking up particular roles with reference to the demarcation of ‘a family life worth living’. By taking these steps, the article attempts to elucidate the governing logic, with which women face higher risks to fall into the category of the ‘abandoned people’ in contemporary Japan where neoliberalism as a political project plays out with some idiosyncratic features.

  This paper aims at understanding the gendered nature of the crisis in the area of social reproduction revealed by the COVID 19 pandemic through the lens of Social Reproduction Theory (SRT). First, I review the main arguments of Social Reproduction Theory, which theorizes production and reproduction as one system of capitalism, and then argue that the current crisis of social reproduction is an inevitable consequence of the gendered global capitalism that has been accumulating at the risk of depletion of the capabilities of social reproduction since before COVID 19. Then, the next section examines the characteristics of the crisis of social reproduction in Japan. Japan has relied on a rigid gender order more than immigrant labor as a way to tackle the increasing demand for social reproduction cost and care workers labor. Finally I argue that the resolution of the crisis of social reproduction must therefore be accompanied by a radical transformation of gender relations.

  This paper takes as its starting point the “lack of care” that has come to be recognized as an important political issue in the midst of the Corona pandemic. While learning from the critique by feminist economics regarding care labor, it also discusses the possibility of a feminist political theory based on care practices and opposing the neoliberalism that has brought about the lack of care.

  The care work historically carried out by women has brought time poverty as well as a lack of resources to women and deprived them of political bargaining power. On the other hand, public support for care work also creates a paradox that keeps women in care work. Feminists focusing on the ethic of care have criticized the image of the human beings and citizens assumed by political science from the perspective of the interdependence of people in need of care. This critique has produced a close linkage between care theory, which envisions a society in which care is redistributed fairly, on the one hand, and an ethic of care, which envisions morality and human relationships that practice good care, on the other.

  By focusing on the experience of time in care practice, this paper reveals that feminist ethics of care started to argue for a foothold of the resistance to the “neoliberal time regime” and a more democratic and care-filled time regime.

  Disasters present opportunities to think anew about how we are connected to others in a society. This piece will draw on feminist analyses of disaster recovery, essential work, and the importance of coalition building to think about how Covid as a complex disaster exposed us to the reality of our shared vulnerability, and also heightened awareness about particularly vulnerable populations. This awareness may make it possible for us to confront long-standing paradoxes in our societies in a way that emphasizes neither absolute security nor individual responsibility but collective action across diverse interests and groups with an aim, not to promise absolute security, but to focus on collective resilience and survival.

  The article aims to understand Japan’s policy response to the care crises that took new forms during the pandemic. It pays attention not only to care practices per se but also their consequences on employment and reproduction. It argues that the policy responses to care crises were inadequate compared to those to job crises due to the insufficient representation of care needs, which allowed the government’s arbitrary “interpretation of needs.” The lack of “rights to care” and sexual reproductive health/rights underscored such inadequacy. Although some policy progress can be found in the realm of reproduction, “neoliberal motherhood” — contradictory combination of the neoliberal use of women’s labor force and the conservative use of motherhood to increase birthrates — was maintained with the selective expansion of women’s self-determination and the reinforcement of heterosexual norms. The article emphasizes that the strong influence of state conservatism should not be underrated in the Japanese context even if neoliberal discourse looms large in the policy choice.

  This paper addresses why government benefit provision has failed to diminish the heterogeneous impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vulnerable groups experiencing social and economic inequality, and health inequity, by examining shortcomings in government policies for identifying the target population and difficulties faced by people in attempting to access benefits. Specifically, this paper analyzes the design of financial support programs for those affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. The administrative praxis, such as incremental conversion of existing programs, application-based welfare benefits and household-based provisions, makes it difficult for those in need to access the benefits, with them consequently becoming discouraged and giving up in their efforts to claim the welfare. Thus the administrative structure has effectively narrowed the target population for receiving benefits. This research found that those groups with disadvantaged attributes who fell outside the “stereotypes” categorized by government were less likely to receive support, and were also intersectional. This inequality in public service delivery leads to the paradox that benefits not only fail to reach those in most need of support, but also that their existence is made invisible. This paradox prevents groups in need from claiming benefits and may increase structural inequalities, prompting a need to reconsider the administrative praxis.

  The present article analyzes how relations between imperial court and political leadership were structured preceding the promulgation of the Meiji Constitution, with a focus on the period following Itō Hirobumi’s constitutional research in Europe.

  Relations between court and politics during this time were based on a principle of mutual non-interference, forbidding intervention by members of the imperial court (including imperial household ministry officials) in the political decision-making process (political involvement by the court), as well as interference by the political leadership in court affairs (political utilization of the court). This principle was established at Itō’s initiative, based on his own past experience with a politicized court, L. v. Stein’s theory of constitutional monarchy, and Yanagiwara Sakimitsu’s theory of the imperial court as an institution.

  Itō was ultimately concerned to strengthen the function of the imperial house as a focus for national integration, which can be seen as a rationale for constitutional monarchy. De-politicization of the imperial court was key to realizing this purpose. Itō’s way of conceiving relations between court and politics was thus central to political modernization in Meiji Japan as a (constitutionally monarchical) nation-state — in conjunction with redefinition of civil-military relations and recasting the role of the bureaucracy.

  This paper examines why and to what extent incidental contact with a fictional politician in a TV drama is projected onto distrust of the actual political space through a survey experiment using the drama Hanzawa Naoki. Previous research on the political effects of television has focused on content assumed to be “political,” such as political news or reports. However, these studies have not examined the causal effect of TV on political attitudes due to the problem of selective exposure. In this paper, we hypothesized that the image of a politician that people encountered in Hanzawa Naoki, a TV show that has extremely high viewership and is very well-known in Japan, could influence the real political space. We tested this hypothesis using a survey experiment. The results revealed that the exposure to the “bad politicians” depicted in Hanzawa Naoki aroused distrust of politicians in the real political world. However, in the population group that was politically indifferent, viewing Hanzawa Naoki had the reverse effect of increasing trust in politicians.

  Since courts generally lack the power to enforce their decisions, the rulings are not implemented if governments refuse to comply. How, then, can courts overcome the risk of non-compliance? Per the extant literature, public support for courts and electoral backlash against non-compliance incentivize governments to comply, helping courts overcome this risk. However, voters do not necessarily electorally punish governments’ failures or underachievement — it is conditional on whether electoral accountability works well. This study hypothesizes that an opposition call for compliance facilitates the proper functioning of electoral accountability for compliance with court rulings, and therefore enables judicial branches to freely make the decisions they want. This study tests that hypothesis using judgments of the Italian Constitutional Court, which has faced the risk of non-compliance. The results of regression analysis show that the Italian Constitutional Court is more likely to rule a statute unconstitutional when the opposition objected to the statute under review at the time of its legislation. This implies that opposition strategy holds the government accountable for non-compliance with judicial decisions and enables the judicial branches to overcome the risk of non-compliance. For courts to play their roles, electoral accountability must function.

  This study explores the debate over consumption tax among Japanese voters. According to the existing literature, welfare states with universalist social benefit and regressive taxation achieve the highest level of equality since they can gain support from middle to high-income earners and the Right. However, this argument assumes the fixed welfare state support from low-income earners and the Left. Therefore, we design a survey experiment and ask if the emphasis on characteristics of benefit and/or taxation has any effect on the support for consumption tax and if such effect is conditioned by income and ideology. Results show the emphasis on universal benefit, or regressivity of tax, makes high-income earners accept higher, but low-income earners pursue lower consumption tax rates. The simultaneous emphasis on both aspects does not strengthen this pattern. Also, we do not observe the conditional effect of ideology. The findings contribute to the deeper understandings of welfare and tax policy formation through the lens of voters.

  This study examined who introduce petitions to the Diet and its contents focusing on the members of the lower house in Japan. We focused on two personal attributes of legislators that have been addressed in previous legislative studies (gender and previous experience) to examine whether legislators introduce petitions to the Diet in policy areas related to their attributes. The analyses of each session from 2003 to 2017 show two findings. First, an analysis focusing on the gender of legislators revealed that female legislators introduce more petitions on “women’s rights” and “child-rearing” to the Diet than male counterparts. Second, an analysis focusing on previous experience of legislators revealed that legislators with legal-work experience introduce more petitions to the Judicial Affairs Committee and those with medical backgrounds introduce more petitions to the Health, Labor and Welfare Committee. These results suggest that legislators reflect the voices of citizens related to their attributes in the Diet.

  One significant issue in politics is how we should live in the same society with those who intentionally engage in discriminatory action and behavior such as hate speech.

  The purpose of this article is to argue that CEB (Care for an Enemy’s Background), which is a new conception of care, can be viewed as a practice of toleration against those who discriminate. Put simply, CEB is asking a person who discriminates his or her reasons for doing so and backgrounds behind the reasons.

  Modus Vivendi is necessary for decreasing discriminatory action (section1), and it is necessary for Modus Vivendi that the antagonism between those who discriminate and those who are against discrimination is defused (section2). In order to defuse antagonism, a sense of “We”, that is, a feeling that we are living together in a liberal democratic society, must be fostered in those who express hate. One way to achieve this is through CEB (section3). I propose CEB as a new conception of care and clarify it by comparing it with existing care ethics (section4). I explain that CEB is equivalent to what is called a weak positive conception of toleration and motivated by emotional bonds with discriminated people (section5).

  This paper aims to clarify how the system of the Chief Cabinet Secretary Shigeru Hori and Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Toshio Kimura was established in the Sato Eisaku cabinet and how it functioned.

  On November 30, 1968, Prime Minister Sato reshuffled his cabinet and made an unusual appointment of Hori, Minister of Construction, as the Chief Cabinet Secretary and Kimura, the Chief Cabinet Secretary, as the Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary. Minoru Kusuda, who was the Executive Secretary to the Prime Minister, called this system “Ōgata kanbou”. It means the system of two Chief Cabinet Secretaries. Facing the Okinawa Reversion and the University Disputes, Prime Minister Sato tried to overcome these difficulties by strengthening his staff and the Prime Minister’s Office (Kantei). Kimura, in cooperation with Kusuda, had been dealing with the media and brain trust since his term as the Chief Cabinet Secretary. It can be assessed that the “Ōgata kanbou”, which lasted about three years, was one of the factors that contributed to the Sato cabinet becoming a long-term government.

  This system strengthened Kantei not through institutional reforms but personnel management. This was a way to strengthen Kantei under Single-party Rule.

  What factors determine whether an election triggers a protest that shakes the government under authoritarian regimes? To answer this question, I focused not on electoral fraud, but on the election results, i.e., the margins of victory for incumbents. This is because the margin of victory is thought to affect the subjective probability of success of the protest held by the opposition parties and their supporters. If the election results show that there is a large margin between the opposition and the ruling party, i.e., a difference in support, mobilization, and organization, then the opposition parties and their supporters are expected to judge the probability of success of the protest as low and refrain from protesting. In line with this expectation, the results of a quantitative analysis of national elections held from 1946 to 2010 under authoritarianism revealed that even after controlling for the degree of electoral fraud, the widening of the vote share gap has the effect of preventing the occurrence of protest. The effect of the margins of victory was confirmed to be robust through analysis with another fraud variable, another protests variable, and conditioned on the autonomy of the election management body.

  Amid the nonviolent political systems that have developed in the modern era, terrorism is a rare political phenomenon because its violence is not restricted by laws or rules. Researchers studying terrorism usually analyze it using empirical case studies or statistical methodologies, but they rarely examine the phenomenon from the perspective of political theories. This article attempts to conceptualize “terrorism” more clearly using the political theories of Carl Schmitt, Ernesto Laclau, and Chantal Mouffe. First, it outlines how researchers cannot define or conceptualize “terrorism”. Second, it applies Schmitt’s friend-enemy theory and typology of enemies to conceptualize “terrorism”. Using Schmitt’s perspective, “terrorism” can be conceptualized as the ultimate manifestation of the political against “absolute enemies.” Next, this article redefines the political in a social constructivist sense using Laclau and Mouffe’s concept of antagonisms and discourse theory. Finally, the insights and implications of this article are presented through an analysis of global jihad.

  Many contemporary writers often describe freedom of speech as an indispensable right for democracy. However, it is unclear what role freedom of speech plays in democracy and what dysfunctions arise when speech is regulated. To examine these questions, this paper takes up the argument of Donald Dworkin, who insists that citizens’ voice gives legitimacy to the law, and so freedom of speech is essential for democracy. From his point of view, the regulation of speech should erode democratic legitimacy. However, two concepts that underpin Dworkin’s argument against the regulation of speech, namely autonomy and silencing effect, do not necessarily imply the negation of the regulation of speech. We can use these concepts to justify the regulation of speech through their reinterpretation. In analyzing the concepts of autonomy and silencing effect, this paper points out that the regulation of speech can support democracy rather than undermine it.

  This study examines how central government policymakers in Slovakia design state administration at the local level and how they forge central and local relationships after democratization. Previous studies have examined the tensions between state administration and local autonomy in post-democratization states. However, because existing research has concentrated on local governments, the dynamics of state administration and its institutional settings remain unclear. Local administration affects how a country is governed and shapes central-local relations together with local autonomy. This study explores how the governing party, as policymakers, leads institutional design for local administration by focusing on several local administration reforms in Slovakia post-democratization. In theory, the governing party hopes to avoid losing power and political resources. This study finds that the party prefers establishing and utilizing regional offices of the central government crossing ministries and policy areas, which are the best way for maintaining or enhancing the party’s power. The party chooses not to transfer its power to local governments or individual ministries when it faces growing administrative demands at the subnational level. These findings assist in revealing institutional design of central-local relations.

  This paper examines the impact of Japanese diplomacy on the American policy toward Japan during the Taiwan Strait crises in the 1950s.

  The Taiwan Strait crisis of 1954–55 broke out when the U.S. considered renewing the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty of 1951. However, the advantages of that replacement for the U.S. were unclear. In addition, the Japanese government did not oppose the U.S. use of the bases in Japan, nor did the government request to renegotiate. So, the U.S. decided not to propose it.

  In 1958, the U.S. considered again the renewal of the treaty, which Japan had requested in the fall of 1955 and 1957. Nevertheless, the U.S. could not begin negotiating a new treaty because Japan’s dedication to cooperating with the Free World was still unclear, and the U.S. could not reach a consensus over how much authority should be granted to Japan on the bases in Japan. At that time, the Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1958 happened, and Japan stood by the U.S. and agreed to the U.S. use of the bases in a cooperative manner. The Japanese attitude to the crisis allayed American concerns and made it possible to start negotiating a new U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.