| Project/Area Number |
16530088
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Politics
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Waseda University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
AGATA Koichiro Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics, Professor, 政治経済学術院, 教授 (00159328)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2004 – 2005
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2005)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥3,500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,500,000)
Fiscal Year 2005: ¥1,900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,900,000)
Fiscal Year 2004: ¥1,600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,600,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | Regulation reform / Telecommunications reform / German-Japanese comparison / 規制緩和 |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The deregulation reform of telecommunications in Germany and Japan since 1980s can be interpreted through two polarised models. In Germany a gradual reform through three stages since 1989 was carried out, while in Japan after a large one-step-reform in 1985 some complemental measures were realised. That is an interpretation for the polarisation hypothesis. Then in both countries from 2003 to 2004 one more large reform was accomplished so that a minimum level of regulation for telecommunications has been reached.
In the telecommunications deregulation in both counties such regulations as at least of networks, services and prices functioning negatively for national economy are completely abolished, while such regulations as of connecting rules and universal services regulation functioning positively for national economy are enforced. A reason why deregulation and reregulation Should parallel occur in the sector of telecommunications can be ascribed to the necessity and universality of telecommunications services. Because they have both characters of private goods and public goods, there must be any regulation for them. In this sense the stage German regulation and Japanese one have reached in the year 2004 could be observed as a necessary minimum regulation, because regulations to be modified were almost abolished, while a basis for those to be set was established.
Viewpoints common for both countries to be further discussed are how the connecting rules and the practice of mutual connections based on them as well as universal services should be developed and how the concerned regulations should be reformed if necessary. Deregulation and reregulation should have different developments based on the characters of concerned goods and services. In this sense the market of telecommunications should be considered as a polity field to be further analysed, although the regulation has already reached to the minimum level now.
|
