You are on page 1of 3

Summary of Vika Analica

Decision Models and Japanese Foreign Policy Decision Making 20140510304
Michael Minor Japan’s Political Governmen

Based on Michael Minor article about “Decision Models and Japanese Foreign Policy
Decision Making”, there are three case studies are examined in decision models. The first is
routine that decisions reached as Allison and Halperin which usually describe in bureaucratic
politics. Second is Political that decisions which have the flavor of interest group politics.
The last model is Critical that decisions suggest an approximation.

Table 1 Decision Models and Japanese Foreign Policy Decision Making
Type of Time for Event Issue Participants Action Decision
Number Locus
Issue Decision Anticipations Stakes Channels Output
Routine Ample Yes Low Few Governmental Regular- Routine,
vertical technical
Politica Ample Yes High Many Governmental/Extra Variable Predictable
l -governmental
Critical Constrained No High Very Governmental Ad hoc- Creative
few horizontal
According Richardson, there are 4 actors in the Japanese policy that can be divided
into the bureaucracy, the prime minister executive elite, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)
and the internal components of the LDP, opposition parties, and interest group.

a) Type One: The Routine Decision
The routine foreign policy decision involves noncontroversial situation with
political significance. Wherever this decision apply in LDP, the opposition and the
executive elite. Within the bureaucracy, decision output is obtained through
regular vertical channels, according to standard operating procedures.
The case of this decision is about “The GATT Tokyo Round of Negotiations”.
In 1964-1967, The Kennedy Round of International tariff negotiations led to
pledge for tariff reduction which had been carried out by the government on 1967.
After that, in 1973 the stage had been set for the Tokyo Round of negotiations on
tariff reduction and made some of cabinet ministers involved in the early phase of
negotiation. About this case, the media were not involved and the public opinion

2 . b) Type Two: The Political Decision The political decisions are politically sensitive and controversial that could change Japan’s international position. The incident was greater when Eisenhower's press secretary. The case of this decisions is about “Revising the US – Japan Scurity Threaty on May-June 1960. So that it caused some faculties of the University of Tokyo signed a petition demanding the dissolution of the Diet and new elections. International Trade and Industry. So on June 23. the concepts used in this decision is a political bureaucracy. the Ministries of Foreign Affairs. Agriculture and Forestry. was never sufficiently aroused to express itself in any overt manner. On May 19 there was an incident media originator to enter into anti-Kishi. The treaty was introduced for ratification into the lower house of the Diet on February 4. The Zengakuren (National Students Federation). On June 19. Where in this case. a popular ant-treaty movement developed after Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi signed a revised treaty in Washington on January 24. 1960. c) Type Three: The Critical Situation The explanation of critical or crisis divided in 3 dimensions. And the minister that involved in this case is the Economic Planning Affairs. James Hagerty. more than 300 thousand of demonstrators surrounded the Diet. In it handling. the same crytalization of opinion can take place in the political parties which factional politics become a keynote of the Japanese decision. After that there was violence involving six hundred students were injured on June 15. Finance. The first is organizational behavior in arriving at decision. SO at that time. So decision making for the Tokyo Round after 1978 was largely confined to several ministries under the general leadership to the minister for External Economic Affairs. Kishi announced his resignation. In this decision. any minister who had negotiated in accordance with their respective positions. and Ambassador dor MacArthur surrounded by Zengakuren on 10 June. The second is the nature of the resulting decisions and the last is defined by situational parameters in term of organizational behavior.

decision-making from Tanaka to visit Beijing. So things that happen can be said of public opinion sufficient to support normalization. During this period the ad hoc group of bureaucrats working directly for Tanaka and Ohira and is not responsible to superiors in the bureaucracy foreign ministry Big Business. After Tanaka and Ohira made the decision to go to Beijing in late September. This occurs due to open his own candidacy for the post of prime minister in the election. namely: 1. there was some opposition in the LDP and segments of big business. The Bureaucracy In the last week of July. Charles Hermann said if the third dimension of crisis is the situational milieu that can as involving surprise. Onel cogently argues that the pressure of a crisis shapes excellent decisions through creative adaptation. the opposition politician acting individually. Even Takeiri not report formally to the party on her journey. Then the chairman of the Democratic Socialists and the Japan Socialist Party took a position in favor of non-partisan Tanaka visits. 3. the work shifted from regular channel for ad hoc groups. Fukui interprets as meaning that Takeiri become part of a new policy group so formed around Tanaka and Ohira. big business did not consolidate their position. In other words. the policy-making process was dominated and almost totally orchestrated by a very small ad hoc cadre of Diet members and Ministry officials 3 . but the opposition gradually fell into line. The example of this decision is “Tanaka Goes to Beijing”. Prime Minister Tanaka and Foreign Minister Ohira took the initiative in mobilizing support for normalization with Beijing and took steps to neutralize such opposition as presented itself 2. non-government supports normalization of relations with the PRC. high perceived threats to the decisions and short decision time. Wherever in this case. and the Media In this case. Deputy Prime Minister Takeo Miki imposed on group decision making. So that in this case. Takeiri still negotiating in Beijing with a working group was formed at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to lead some activities. In this case. Public Opinion. This is based when Tanaka and Ohira traveled to Beijing with their own proposals and back in Tokyo with Chinese responses were immediately shown Tanaka and Ohira. And in other side.