| Research Outline |
Background to the Establishment of the Institute]
Research on administrative culture is far from complete. One of the best studies is Yoshinori Ide's "Japanese Bureaucracy and Administrative Culture" (Nihon kanryo seido to giron bunka) (University of Tokyo Press, 1982). This is an excellent study of administrative culture and the bureaucracy, but there is no other research on administrative culture. From the perspective of administrative culture, there are other important areas of research besides bureaucracy, but there is almost no research in these areas.
In order to study administrative culture, it would be effective to clarify the administrative culture of each country or region through comparative research. In this regard, comparative research in the field of public administration research is dominated by studies of Western European countries. For example, "Civil Service System" (Keiso Shobo, 1956), edited by Ukai, Tsuji, and Nagahama, is a comparative study of the British, US, German, and French civil service systems, and "Civil Service System Reform" (Gakuyo Shobo, 2008), edited by Muramatsu, is a comparative study of the British, US, German, and French civil service systems. Silberman, Muto, et al. (1999), Comparative History of the Formation of the Government Bureaucracy (Sanreishobo, 1999), is a comparison of Britain, the U.S., France, and Japan. Comparative Administrative Institutions" (Houhou Bunka Sha, 2006) by Hiroshi Toki and Fusho Kato is a comparison of the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Thailand, and Russia.
In view of the current state of these studies, comparative studies of administrative systems have been the main focus, and comparative studies of Western European countries have been the main focus. Conversely, comparative studies in East Asia (Japan, China, and Korea) and studies related to administrative culture are scarce. In particular, comparisons between China, Japan, and South Korea, which are important from historical and cultural perspectives, are almost nonexistent in the field of administrative culture. Although comparative research with China and South Korea is important for Japan's neighbors, it is extremely rare and an unexplored field. For the time being, therefore, we will focus our research on the administrative culture of East Asia, namely, Japan, China, and South Korea.
The purpose of the Institute is to clarify the concept of administrative culture at the research level and to clarify the relationship between administrative culture and administrative systems through international comparative research. For the time being, for the reasons stated above, the Institute will focus on comparative research among Japan, China, and Korea, with an emphasis on comparative research among these three countries to clarify the relevance of administrative culture and administrative systems in these three countries and, as a result, to promote mutual understanding among these three countries.
The concept of "administrative culture" is not so self-explanatory, but it is defined as "historical and social practices deeply related to public administration. In Western countries, each country has developed its own administrative culture, either in the historical and social course of the formation of the modern state, or by taking over elements of earlier cultures. In Japan, the customs of the samurai world are considered to have had a major influence during the formation of modern administration in the Meiji era. In Korea, Confucianism is thought to have had a major influence, and in China, the system of the military academy is thought to have had a major influence. The three elements of samurai, Confucianism, and the system of military education in these three East Asian countries are thought to have influenced each other, but this point is not clear.
As mentioned above, for the time being, the Institute will focus its research on administrative culture in East Asia (Japan, China, and Korea), but it is the goal of the Institute to contribute to the development of international comparative research on administrative culture, while drawing on the comparative research findings of Western countries, where research is relatively abundant.
|
