Bookreview: Kenryoku iko
Bookreview: Kenryoku iko
复制标题
书评：Kenryoku iko
DOI：
10.1093/ssjj/jyu030
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
Yosuke TEZUKA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
梶原義実;岡田紘和;片桐妃奈子;深谷岬;西本茉由;梶原義実・竹原弘展;Yosuke TEZUKA
众所周知，日本战后的政治历史一直由一个政党主导：自民党（LDP）。无论是单独执政还是联合执政，自民党自成立以来几乎一直执政。 20 世纪 90 年代开始的一系列政治格局变化终于在 2009 年结出硕果，自民党政权被日本民主党 (DPJ) 推翻。然而，公众对民主党执政表现的失望，加上其他几个因素，导致2012年自民党重新执政。那么，日本政治是否发生了变化，还是一切如常呢？在 Kenryoku Ikō [Power Shift] 中，Makihara Izuru 并不排除这两种解释。相反，他概述了一种政治体系的发展，其中政权更迭是可能的，作为 20 世纪 80 年代之前盛行的以自民党为中心的体系和 1990 年代以来的“改革时代”中“持续和渐进变革的产物”（第 16 页）。因此，槙原认为，只有理解促进政权更迭的机制与自民党政治的关系，才能有效地概念化它们。槙原在过去二十年持续存在的“政权更迭”和“改革”现实中找到了解决日本政治变化和连续性难题的关键。本书首先回顾了自民党统治时期的政权更迭机制（第一章）。牧原不仅关注从一个政党到另一个政党的转变，而且还关注同一政党内部的继任经历。诚然，与许多其他国家相比，日本在权力从一党到另一党的过渡方面的经验有限，但在继承方面的经验和专业知识显然是丰富的。接下来的四章（第二章到第五章）包含对不同“改革”手段的分析，特别关注民选官员和官僚之间的关系。牧原强调了1980年代的“旧式改革”、新的“90年代式改革”以及2000年代初期小泉纯一郎担任首相期间推进的“结构性改革”在内容和方法上的差异。他解释说，虽然20世纪90年代推行的全面治理改革确实导致了执政党和内阁的权力更加集中，但它们也极大地扩大了以前受中央政府有效控制的组织的自主权，例如地方政府当局、法院和日本银行。牧原在此传达的关键信息是，自 20 世纪 90 年代以来政治进程的基本特征只能通过分析两个平行的变化来识别：内阁势力范围的缩小，以及执政党和内阁权力在这种缩小所产生的范围内集中。
It is widely known that Japan’s postwar political history has been dominated by a single political party: The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Either alone or in coalition, the LDP has been in power at almost all times since its formation. A series of changes in the political landscape that began the 1990s finally bore fruit in 2009 when the LDP regime was toppled by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). However, public disillusionment with the DPJ’s performance in government combined with several other factors to result in a reversion to LDP rule in 2012. So, have Japanese politics changed, or is it business as usual? In Kenryoku Ikō [Power Shift], Makihara Izuru does not exclude either interpretation. Rather, he outlines the development of a political system where regime change is possible as a ‘product of ongoing and incremental transformations’(p. 16) in both the LDP-centered system that prevailed up to the 1980s and the ‘era of reform’from the 1990s onward. Makihara argues, therefore, that the mechanisms facilitating regime change can only be conceptualized effectively if we understand how they are connected to LDP politics. Makihara finds the key to this puzzle of change and continuity in Japanese politics in the realities of ‘regime change’and ‘reform’that have persisted over the past two decades. The book begins with a review of the mechanisms of regime change, traced right back to the era of LDP dominance (Chapter 1). Makihara focuses not only on transition from one political party to another, but also on the experience of succession within the same party. It is true that in comparison with many other countries, Japan has only limited experience in transition of power from one party to another, but the experience and expertise in succession are clearly extensive. The following four chapters (2 through 5) contain analysis of different devices of ‘reform’with a particular focus on the relationships between elected officials and bureaucrats. Makihara highlights the differences in terms of content and method between the ‘old-style reforms’ of the 1980s, the newer ‘1990s-style reforms’, and the ‘structural reforms’ advanced during Koizumi Junichiro’s time as Prime Minister in the early 2000s. He explains that although the across-theboard governance reforms pursued in the 1990s certainly did result in greater concentration of power in the ruling party and Cabinet, they also dramatically expanded the autonomy of organizations that had previously been under the effective control of the central government, such as local government authorities, courts, and the Bank of Japan. Makihara’s key message here is that the essential features of the political process since the 1990s can only be identified through analysis of two parallel changes: the reduction of the Cabinet’s sphere of influence, and the concentration of power in the ruling party and Cabinet within the boundaries created by that reduction.