Paper short abstract:

This paper analyzes how expertise is defined in the regulation process of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in Japan, how experts are recruited, what kind of chances for participation individual citizens and consumer advocacy groups have and how transparent the GMO regulation process is.

Paper long abstract:

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been a highly contested issue in Japan since the late 1990s. In 2001, when the Japanese government was reforming its food safety regulation system, it reacted to anti-GMO campaigns by consumer and farmers organizations and established mandatory labeling. In 2004, the newly established Food Safety Commission (FSC) was put in charge of mandatory risk assessment. Based on interviews with scientists advising the FSC's expert committee on genetically modified organisms and bureaucrats working at the FSC, this paper analyzes their perceptions of expert and lay knowledge and the role of public participation and transparency. While scientific and political communities often claim that the public is lacking the expertise to understand certain kind of risks or technologies and thus should not participate in risk-related decision-making processes, many scholars from the social sciences agree that public participation in decision-making increases trust in political actors and institutions. However, in Japan (as elsewhere), this participation is often limited to public comments or public consultation activities within or outside of deliberation councils and does not often result in different outcomes. The paper analyzes how expertise is defined against the backdrop of a distinction made between lay and expert knowledge, how experts are recruited, what kind of chances for participation individual citizens and consumer advocacy groups have and how transparent the GMO regulation process is. It also shows how policy makers and professional scientists hierarchize knowledge as either irrelevant lay knowledge or relevant expert knowledge. The paper thus addresses the complex relationship between scientists, bureaucrats, the parliament, MHLW and FSC, the food industry and consumer advocacy organizations, with a focus on conflicts and chances for cooperation. In this way, the paper provides a new perspective on power relations within the Japanese society and contributes to the discussion on public participation in food safety governance in Science and Technology Studies and the debate about the democratization and participation in Japanese politics.

Paper short abstract:

This paper argues that in cultural politics in Japan, opposing definitions of culture emerged together with two different types of "policy expertise" in the context of the making of the Basic Law for the Promotion of Culture and the Arts and analyzes how they are reflected in the law.

Paper long abstract:

Culture is a delicate policy field, where the state should secure and promote creative freedom of various stakeholders in the society. However, the concept of culture is contested. This paper argues that in cultural politics in Japan, it oscillates along a continuum between two poles: national and profit-making culture led by the central government and professional organizations and more anti-authoritarian nonprofit culture initiated by local governments and grassroots organizations. These two poles emerged together with two different types of "policy expertise" in the context of the making of the Basic Law for the Promotion of Culture and the Arts (BLPCA). Thus, this paper tackles the question of how the different concepts of culture, culture's role in society and different views on citizens' relations to culture are reflected in the BLPCA. The Diet passed the BLPCA in 2001. Two groups of concerned experts where involved in the law-making process: experts from 16 professional organizations of actors and musicians who later founded the Arts and Culture Forum (AC-Forum) on the one hand and from the Cultural Policy Proposal Network (CP-NET) on the other. The AC-Forum developed into a large lobbying organization closely connected to politicians and its definition of culture is oriented towards rather commercial and government-supported activities with the main goal of generating profits. The CP-NET, on the other hand, consists mainly of scholars, local government bureaucrats and artists interested in cultural rights and cultural democracy. The dominance of the 16 professional organizations and later AC-Forum members in the policy-making process helped to create and pass the law in an astonishingly short time. However, the CP-Net criticized that the policy-making process was undemocratic and lacked any in-depth discussion on the concept of culture and its role in society. Based on the case of the BLPCA, I will discuss the overlap of expert knowledge and interest groups and its implication on policy-making and the promotion of culture in Japan.

Paper short abstract:

In Japan, major research on fisheries is conducted by the Fisheries Research Agency (FRA), an independent administrative body established in 2001. The paper analyzes, how the FRA negotiates its "objective knowledge" vis-à-vis the fishermen's "traditional knowledge" in the policy-making process.

Paper long abstract:

Policy decisions in the field of fisheries, especially with regards to resource management are almost always based on scientific evidence and advice. While the collection of the data and the consecutive advice on specific catch recommendations follow bio-economic models, the actual decisions on management objectives, the setting of total allowable catch levels and other measures are the result of negotiations between policy makers, fisheries and industry representatives and experts. In the course of these negotiations political interests often override the science-based advice. Moreover, the role of the experts becomes blurred, since they, involved in these policy decisions, are no longer impartial or objective, as they often claim.

In Japan, major research on fisheries resources, development and technology is conducted by the Fisheries Research Agency (FRA), an independent administrative body run by the central government, which was established in 2001. Consisting of nine research institutes, one center and the National Fisheries University, the FRA is not only engaged in research on such diverse subjects such as economic analysis of the fishing industry, resource assessment, genetic research or aquaculture technology, but also actively involved in policy formulation. In 2008, for instance the FRA conducted research requested by the Fisheries Agency on possible management and policy frameworks, which was published as a report in 2009. Furthermore, it regularly prepares medium- and long-term plans based on the objectives proclaimed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries. The paper analyzes, how the FRA negotiates its "objective knowledge" vis-à-vis the fishermen's "traditional knowledge" in the policy-making process. By examining these aspects, the paper also contributes to the broader question of possible roles of "experts" in policy-making in Japan.