On January 26th, the headquarters of administrative reform comiitte ("Chuou-shouchou-tou Kaikaku suisin kaigi") announced the fundamental principles of reform of central ministries and government offices.

According to the fundamental principles, 118 committees are scheduled to be abolished. Currently, a task of creating a bill is underway. In April, the bill is expected to pass the Diet and will be enforced by the year 2001. Investors interested in Japan's market so far has been considering these advisory counsils to be non-transparent organizations. With streamlining and disclosing of information to the public, can these councils become more transparent than before?

What are the practical purposes of "Shingikai"

As for the bureaucrats, the real objective of them lies in obtaining the budget. Primarily, the objective of the bureaucrats is to carry out administration. But although the Diet is the legislative organ, the administrative side helps the work of making a legislation due to the Diet's lack of capacity in creating the bill.

The bureaucrats are good at selecting specialists who they think that they can make use of having their way. That is, by opening these advisory councils they create evidence that they listen to "public opinion".

It is very honorable for specialists to be selected as a member of the councils. Besides most of the councils do not require much of labor. They get a lunch and can obtain a fixed amount of reward only if they express their view in the committee held periodically. They have no responsibility to report to voters.

However, most important of all is the fact that nearly all of the content and the scenario discussed in the meeting is prepared beforehand by cautious work by the bureaucrats. It is natural that there is a criticism claiming to clarify this process. Transparency of this process indispensable for the world's investors as crucial information for investment decision, not to mention the voter's right to know. But such a scenario would never become public. Most of the investment analysts may stay frustrated with the non-transparency of the policy decision process.

Information disclosure for informal meetings

On February 5th, the Director-General of the the Management and Coordination Agency (MCA), Seiichi Ota alluded to eventual abolishment of all the advisory councils when he had a formal interview with the japanese journalist's club after the Cabinet councils. What significance is there behind the suggestion? Frankly speaking, from politicians' point of view, there is no need to use the advisory councils at all if the differences of opinion can be coordinated within the ruling party of the LDP.

That is, discussions at various sub-committees, investigation meetings and committees held within the LDP would suffice for their purpose. If this change will occur, investors and analysts in the world will want to know what are discussed in those meetings and committees. The contents of the discussion held in sub-committees and those meetings are expected to become heated. For all of the contents of the discussion have to do with "budget" and "rights and interests".

However, major items are not necessarily decided in these sub-committees or investigation committees. Just like in advisory councils, before the stage of holding the meetings, most of the profit adjustment is expected to be completed.

For example, suppose that a heated discussion, which is somewhat close to a quarrel, was held at these meetings. However, many of these can be a performance to find a compromise point or a mere gesture performed by the so-called zokugiin (Diet members who keep and benefit from their current rights and interests) to obtain a new budget.

Where is such a scenario prepared? Is it prepared by bureaucrats with a budget document in their hands devising councils in a dimly lit meeting room at Kasumigaseki? Is it prepared by old and crafty politicians who have strong interests in rights and interests? Or could it be leading figures of the industrial circle with their web of network extended inside the political world and bureaucrats.

And who makes the decision? Is it the boss's office of a faction among the LDP where various types of information about rights and interests are gathered? Or is it decided between high-level bureaucrats and politicians, or with financiers at the preliminary meeting , what is called "uchiawase", which is held nightly at a first-class Japanese restaurant in around Nagata-cho or Akasaka? Certainly the decision is not made by the Prime Minister Obuchi.