| Project/Area Number |
63041001
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Overseas Scientific Survey.
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | Field Research |
|---|
| Research Institution | Saitama University (1989)
Hokkaido University (1988) |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
ITO Daiichi Graduate School of Policy Science, Saitama University, 大学院政策科学研究科, 教授 (30000657)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
MAURICE Wrig マンチェスター大学, 政経学部, 教授
WATANABE Chihiro Graduate School of Policy Science, Saitama University, 大学院政策科学研究科, 教授 (60220901)
MURAMATSU Michio Faculty of Law, Kyoto University, 法学部, 教授 (80025147)
YOSHINO Naoyuki Graduate School of Policy Science, Saitama University, 大学院政策科学研究科, 助教授 (50128584)
YOSHIMURA Toru Graduate School of Policy Science, Saitama University, 大学院政策科学研究科, 教授 (50008629)
WRIGHT Maurice Department of Government, Manchester University
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1987 – 1989
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 1989)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥5,600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥5,600,000)
Fiscal Year 1989: ¥2,300,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,300,000)
Fiscal Year 1988: ¥3,300,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,300,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | Government / Industrial policy / Telecommunication / Biotechnology / R & D / Regulation / Privatisation / Administrative guidance |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
Starting with the framework of "policy community", this programme aims at analysing the structure and working of government-industry relations both in the growing sectors and in the declining sectors, with a view to elaborating the original framework. The products of analysis suggest that, in Japan, greater stress is placed upon encouraging firms to be self-sustaining than in Britain, as is exemplified by policies urging those in the declining sectors to diversify business activities by themselves or those in the growing sectors to conduct their own R & D. This implies that role of the government in industrial development is little more than that of a trump card that can be played only in exceptional instances. There is, however, some evidence that indicates that a fixed quantity of regulation must somehow be secured in every country, and that, while regulation of a guild-type is available in Britain, most of it must be provided in the form of government regulation. This latter point may be illustrated by the fact that practices of M & A serve as a functional substitute for entry regulation in Britain. Thus, seen as a whole, "policy community" may usefully be reconstructed as a dual framework of analysis involving a well-organised "administrative community" that allows government intervention to work as a "legal community" of a rule-setting type that encompasses an "administraive community."
|
