Is Post-Fukushima Reform Making Japan Safer? From Shared Responsibility to Collective Accountability

IF 0.4 Q3 AREA STUDIES
Y. Takao
{"title":"Is Post-Fukushima Reform Making Japan Safer? From Shared Responsibility to Collective Accountability","authors":"Y. Takao","doi":"10.1080/10371397.2023.2184332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ten years after the Fukushima disaster, the nuclear safety regulation system in Japan has gradually moved from the exclusionary process of policy making, based on hierarchically organized policy, to a decentralized and open process of policy making whose competence is divided beyond the pre-given political actors. Yet policy making and implementation need to bring together multiple stakeholders to work in concert to achieve a desired outcome of nuclear safety. This article seeks to explain why the trend towards more inclusive forms of policy making may still lead to negative consequences for democratic accountability of nuclear safety. The author argues that the coordination issue becomes critical to a plurality of conflicting interests and beliefs of autonomous stakeholders. Although the decision-making plurality favours democratic interest representation, empirical evidence suggests that a poorly coordinated response by the national government to nuclear policy implementation fails to get stakeholders to work together for Japan’s nuclear safety. From a broader perspective, the lack of coordination among different stakeholders is one of the weaknesses of expanding accountability mechanisms to include more stakeholders, and results in challenges to policy coherence.","PeriodicalId":44839,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Studies","volume":"43 1","pages":"49 - 69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1090","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10371397.2023.2184332","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Ten years after the Fukushima disaster, the nuclear safety regulation system in Japan has gradually moved from the exclusionary process of policy making, based on hierarchically organized policy, to a decentralized and open process of policy making whose competence is divided beyond the pre-given political actors. Yet policy making and implementation need to bring together multiple stakeholders to work in concert to achieve a desired outcome of nuclear safety. This article seeks to explain why the trend towards more inclusive forms of policy making may still lead to negative consequences for democratic accountability of nuclear safety. The author argues that the coordination issue becomes critical to a plurality of conflicting interests and beliefs of autonomous stakeholders. Although the decision-making plurality favours democratic interest representation, empirical evidence suggests that a poorly coordinated response by the national government to nuclear policy implementation fails to get stakeholders to work together for Japan’s nuclear safety. From a broader perspective, the lack of coordination among different stakeholders is one of the weaknesses of expanding accountability mechanisms to include more stakeholders, and results in challenges to policy coherence.
后福岛改革让日本更安全?从共同责任到集体责任
摘要福岛核事故发生十年后,日本的核安全监管体系逐渐从基于分级组织政策的排他性政策制定过程,转变为权力分散、开放的政策制定过程。然而,政策制定和实施需要将多个利益攸关方聚集在一起,共同努力,以实现核安全的预期结果。本文试图解释为什么更具包容性的政策制定形式的趋势仍可能对核安全的民主问责制产生负面影响。作者认为,协调问题对自主利益相关者的多种利益和信念的冲突至关重要。尽管决策多元化有利于民主利益代表,但经验证据表明,国家政府对核政策实施的协调不力,未能让利益相关者为日本的核安全共同努力。从更广泛的角度来看,不同利益攸关方之间缺乏协调是扩大问责机制以包括更多利益攸关方的弱点之一,并导致政策一致性面临挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Japanese Studies
Japanese Studies AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信