2010年-世界发展银行全球_Overview_of_Public_Sector_Performance_Assessment_Processes_in_Japan_8页_1mb

Summary of Japan's Public Sector Performance Assessment Processes (2001–2010)

Core Content

Japan introduced a series of public sector performance assessment initiatives between 2001 and 2010, aimed at improving the efficiency of service delivery, addressing fiscal challenges, and increasing transparency and accountability. These processes were implemented across multiple agencies and involved both policy and activity evaluations.

Main Initiatives

1. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC)

• Established in 2001 as part of the Central Government Reform program.
• Developed a comprehensive policy evaluation framework (ex-ante and ex-post) for all ministries.
• Line ministries must submit a 3 or 5-year Basic Evaluation Plan and an annual Implementation Plan.
• Evaluation reports are submitted to the MIC, Diet, and made public online.
• Uses varied KPIs across ministries, such as A-C scale for MAFF and 1-5 star for MOFA.
• Encourages analysis and prioritization of activities through the PDCA cycle.

2. Ministry of Finance (MoF)

• Introduced the Budget Execution Review in 2002 to improve the link between performance and budgeting.
• Reviews specific activities, miscellaneous fees, and contracts based on necessity, effectiveness, and efficiency.
• Provides recommendations for budget adjustments, which are incorporated into future budget requests.
• In 2008, 63 activities were reviewed, resulting in 32.4 billion yen savings for the FY2009 budget.

3. Government Revitalization Unit (GRU)

• Established in 2009 by the Democratic Party (DP) to shift policy-making from a 'technocrat-led' to a 'politician-led' model.
• Conducts Public Sector Activity Screening (Jigyo-shiwake) and Public Sector Activity Review (Gyosei-Jigyo Review).
• Jigyo-shiwake:
  • Centrally managed by the GRU.
  • Reviews activities with ratings: partial improvements, fundamental improvements, or discontinuation.
  • First screening in 2009 reviewed 449 activities, saving 1.7 trillion yen for FY2010.
  • Second screening in 2010 reviewed 232 activities across autonomous agencies and public-service corporations.
• Gyosei-Jigyo Review:
  • Introduced in 2010 as an annual review process.
  • Piloted with 43 out of 179 activities labeled as "discontinued," saving 33.4 billion yen for FY2011.
  • Involves quarterly meetings of "Budget Inspection and Efficiency Teams" led by Vice Ministers.

4. Other Evaluation Mechanisms

• Board of Audit:
  • Conducts financial audits and recently introduced the 3Es (Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness) for policy and activity evaluation.
  • Not widely implemented.
• Internal Audit Functions:
  • Each ministry and agency has its own internal audit system, but they are not standardized.
  • Focuses on final accounts and advises internal management.

Local Government

• Local governments are not legally required to conduct evaluations, but many have introduced self-evaluation systems.
• As of 2009, 50.6% of local governments had some form of evaluation system.
• Mie Prefecture is a notable example of a local government that developed a performance-based system with a focus on managing for results and creating performance incentives for civil servants.

Key Challenges and Limitations

• Fiscal Pressures: Japan faced a long-term economic downturn and rising sovereign debt, necessitating fiscal control.
• Fragmented Systems: Multiple evaluation systems (MIC, MoF, GRU) led to high transaction costs and lack of integration.
• Limited Linkage: Evaluation results are not linked to individual or ministerial performance.
• Political Influence: The GRU, under the Cabinet Office, has significant political power, influencing the evaluation and budgeting process.
• Institutional Barriers: Japan still uses a line-item budget system and lacks a Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF).

Key Outcomes

• Increased transparency in public sector activities through public availability of evaluation reports and live broadcasts.
• Some budget savings achieved through activity screening and review processes (e.g., 1.7 trillion yen in 2009, 33.4 billion yen in 2011).
• Improved ministerial awareness of the purpose and impact of their activities.
• No clear incentive structures for performance improvement or accountability yet.

Conclusion

Japan's public sector performance assessment processes have made strides in improving efficiency and transparency, but the system remains fragmented and lacks strong integration with budgeting and performance incentives. Continued political leadership and institutional reform are necessary to ensure that these processes lead to meaningful performance improvements.