Abstract
The summer of 2012 was a significant period for Japan’s nuclear and energy policy in that, in response to the Fukushima nuclear accident, the government decided to undertake, what it termed, a “National Discussion” on energy policy. This was the first time that Deliberative Polling had been introduced in Japan on a policy level. This DP included 285 randomly selected participants from across Japan, asking them to deliberate on three nuclear energy policy options with the assistance of a panel of eight specially selected experts. The participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire at three points during the process, and their support for the three options (zero, 15, and 20–25 % nuclear dependency scenarios) were recorded and later analyzed. What was particularly interesting was the participants’ desire not merely for information but also to challenge the panelists’ individual viewpoints and to question the very framework of the discussion. Significant changes in the level of support for the three scenarios were observed, with approximately 50 % of the participants eventually choosing a shift away from nuclear dependency. An examination of the government’s response to the National Discussion , including the DP, demonstrated that the results had a significant impact on nuclear policy , with the government explicitly stating that nuclear dependency should be phased out by the 2030s. A subsequent change in government led to the abandonment of this policy decision, but did not totally undermine the value of Japan’s first attempt at combining a public participatory process with actual national policymaking in the field of science and technology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The organizers announced that 150,000–180,000 people participated on that day while the Tokyo Metropolitan Police estimated the crowd at about 17,000 people. (The Asahi Shimbun, June 30, 2012.)
- 2.
Hasegawa (2014) provides an overview of Japanese civil society’s reaction to the Fukushima accident, including the demonstrations around the Prime Minister’s office (so-called “Kantei Demonstrations”).
- 3.
“Interim Compilation of Discussion Points for the Formulation of ‘Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment’” (July 29, 2011, The Energy and Environment Council).
- 4.
Regarding the DP and the National Discussion on Energy and Environmental Policy Options, several studies have already been published in Japanese. Sone et al. (2013), Yagishita (2014), and Yanase (2013) are detailed reports of the entire process by the DP organizers themselves, who are also researchers in deliberative democracy. Kobayashi (2012) and Yagi (2013) are personal reviews by members of the Independent Review Committee of the DP, and they point out a number of achievements as well as problems of the DP and the National Discussion process. Sugawara (2013), admitting the significance of the Energy DP, examines the DP process and results from the viewpoint of public opinion research, and he points out several problems, particularly in regard to the representativeness of the participants. Onai (2014) examines the National Discussion as an example of introducing the idea of deliberative democracy to nuclear politics, and criticizes the government for having so quickly abandoned the outcomes of the National Discussion after the regime change in 2012.
- 5.
The website of the Atomic Energy Commission. http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/iinkai/entaku/index_e.htm. Accessed on 20 Aug 2014.
- 6.
Kan was forced to resign in September 2011 due to the strong disapprovals of his post-quake recovery measures, which were indicated not only by the opposition parties and the public but also by some factions in the ruling party. Yoshihiko Noda took over and stayed in office until December 2012, when the DPJ suffered a crushing defeat in the general election.
- 7.
A group of researchers (including the author), mainly those specializing in STS and participatory practices in science and technology, issued an emergency statement on the same day (June 29), warning that the government’s DP plan did not allow sufficient time for preparation and lacked the independent steering body, both of which are necessary for the fair and proper organization of a mini-public. The researchers also insisted that the government clearly indicate how it would treat the results from the DP. Although the lack of time was unavoidable, the recommendation can in part be seen to have resulted in the establishment of the DP Steering Committee as well as the disclosure of the review process to be implemented after the National Discussion.
- 8.
The English translation of the Energy DP briefing material (DP Steering Committee 2012a), along with other related resources, is available at the website of the Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University. (http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/japan. Accessed 20 Aug 2014.)
- 9.
http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/npu/kokumingiron/dp/index.html. Accessed on 20 Aug 2014.
- 10.
The author worked for the Independent Review Panel of the DP, chaired by Professor Tadashi Kobayashi (Osaka University), which was commissioned by the Steering Committee to review the DP process. The author was appointed as an investigator for the panel and allowed to accompany its members to observe the entire DP proceedings.
- 11.
http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/npu/policy09/archive12.html. Accessed on 20 Aug 2014.
- 12.
For example, a question in the plenary session on Day One was presented as follows: “I’m sorry to trouble you with a similar question, but is there any prospect of the development of a renewable energy that is as efficient as nuclear energy? This is our question, and uh…. if we choose a zero nuclear option, the scenario says we need to increase the percentage of renewable energy from 10 to 30 %. What is the specific plan to realize this scenario?” (Group B).
- 13.
The cost verification committee estimated in the 2011 report that the cost of nuclear power was 8.9 yen/KWH or more. However, when the government recalculated this on the basis of the latest data for the presentation of the three options, it had increased by 0.1 yen to become 9.0 yen/KWH or more.
- 14.
This observation is in agreement with the qualitative analysis of the group discussion records conducted by one of the DP organizers, Hironobu Uekihara. Based on his participant observation and analysis, Uekihara claimed that, in the group sessions on the morning of Day Two, more and more participants started to express their resolution to deliberate and decide on the energy choices for themselves, rather than depending on the experts and leaving decisions up to them. (Sone et al. 2013, pp. 162–181.)
- 15.
The questionnaires asked the participants whether they supported each of the three scenarios on a eleven-point scale, from 0 (“strongly disagree”) to 10 (“strongly agree”), with 5 being “exactly in the middle.” A “supporter” of a scenario here refers to a participant who answered exclusively in favor of one scenario, rating it at 6 or higher.
- 16.
Comment by Professor Junko Obata of Sophia University, a Panel member.
- 17.
Comment by Professor Tadashi Kobayashi of Osaka University, a Panel member.
- 18.
The Asahi Shimbun, May 28, 1960 (evening edition).
- 19.
Mr. Noda’s comment was in Japanese (he was reported to have said, “Okina oto ga shimasune.”), and the English translation shown here in the text is from the New York Times, June 29, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/world/asia/thousands-in-tokyo-protest-the-restarting-of-a-nuclear-plant.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2014.
- 20.
The forum recruited the participants from 3,000 randomly selected residents of Kawasaki-city, Kanagawa Prefecture. A total of 670 people responded to T1, and 57 people eventually participated in the discussion forum held in August 2012 (Miyagi and Yagishita 2013; Yagishita (Ed.) 2014, pp. 50–51). The author was a member of the organizing committee of this project and interviewed with four ex-participants from November to December in 2012.
References
Blok, A. (2007). Experts on public trial: On democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 163–182. doi:10.1177/0963662507062469.
DP Steering Committee (Enerugi kankyo no sentakushi ni kansuru torongata yoronchosa jikkoiinkai) (2012a). Enerugi kankyo no sentakushi ni kansuru torongata yoronchosa toronshiryo (Briefing booklet for the Deliberative Polling on Energy and Environmental Policy Options).
DP Steering Committee (Enerugi kankyo no sentakushi ni kansuru torongata yoronchosa jikkoiinkai) (2012b). Enerugi kankyou no sentakushi ni kansuru torongata yoronchosa chosa hokokusho (Report on the Deliberative Polling on Energy and Environmental Policy Options).
Dryzek, J. S., Goodin, R. E., Tucker, A., & Reber, B. (2009). Promethean elites encounter precautionary publics: The case of GM foods. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34(3), 263–288. doi:10.1177/0162243907310297.
Einsiedel, E. F., Jelsøe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 83–98. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/306.
Felt, U., & Fochler, M. (2010). Machineries for making publics: Inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva, 48(3), 219–238. doi:10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x.
Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goodin, R. E., & Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics and Society, 34(2), 219–244. doi:10.1177/0032329206288152.
Hasegawa, K. (2014). The Fukushima nuclear accident and Japan’s civil society: Context, reactions, and policy impacts. International Sociology, 29(4), 283–301. doi:10.1177/0268580914536413.
Honda, H. (2005). Datsu genshiryoku no undo to seiji: Nihon no enerugi seisaku no tenkan wa kano ka (Movements and politics of post-nuclear power). Sapporo: Hokkaido University Press.
Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘New’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299–320. doi:10.1177/0306312706053350.
Kobayashi, T. (2004). Dare ga kagaku-gijutsu ni tsuite kangaerunoka: konsensasu kaigi toiu jikken (Who should deliberate on science and technology? Consensus conference as an experiment). Nagoya: Nagoya University Press.
Kobayashi, T. (2012). “Kokuminteki giron” towa nandattanoka: Genpatsu o meguru shiminsanka no arikata (What was the “National Discussion”? Public participation on nuclear power). Asteion, 77, 192–208.
Miyagi, T. (2014). Kakushinteki enerugi kankyo senryaku no seisaku kettei katei (The policymaking process of the Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment). In M. Yagishita (Ed.), Tettei togi nihon no enerugi kankyo senryaku (Public debate on the Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment) (pp. 1–26). Tokyo: Sophia University Press.
Miyagi, T., & Yagishita, M. (2013). Torongata yoronchosa no shuho o mochiita minkan dokuji chosa no kokoromi: 3.11 go no enerugi-kankyo no sentakushi ni kansuru kokuminteki giron (A private sector-led study of public opinion using the deliberative poll method: Public debate on the Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment after March 11, 2011). Chikyu kankyo gaku (Global environmental studies), 8, 79–112.
Nielsen, A. P., Lassen, J., & Sandøe, P. (2007). Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 13–35. doi:10.1007/s10806-006-9018-5.
Nishioka, S. (2011). Teitanso shakai no dezain: Zero haishutsu wa kano ka (Designing a low-carbon society: Is zero-emission possible?). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Ogiwara, S. (2014). “Enerugi kankyo no sentakushi ni kansuru torongata yoronchosa” ni kansuru shimbun kiji no doko (A review of newspaper articles on “Deliberative Polling on options for Energy and Environmental Policy Options”). Jinbunkagaku nempo, 44, 25–43.
Onai, T. (2007). Nihon ni okeru “jukugi-sanka demokurashi” no hoga: Genshiryoku seijikatei o toshite (The emergence of “deliberative-participatory democracy” in Japan: Through nuclear politics). In A. Ogawa (Ed.), Posuto daihyosei no hikakuseiji: Jukugi to sanka no demokurashi (Comparative politics of the post-representative era: Democracy of deliberation and participation) (pp. 79–104). Tokyo: Waseda University Press.
Onai, T. (2014). Jukugi minshushugi (Deliberative democracy). In H. Honda & T. Horie (Eds.), Datsu genpatsu no hikakuseijigaku (Comparative politics of post-nuclear power) (pp. 109–128). Tokyo: Hosei University Press.
Powell, M., & Kleinman, D. L. (2008). Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 329–348. doi:10.1177/0963662506068000.
Shinohara, H. (Ed.). (2012). Togi demokurashi no chosen: mini paburikkusu ga hiraku atarashii seiji (The challenges of deliberative democracy: Democratic innovation through mini-publics). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sone, Y., Yanase, N., Uekihara, H., & Shimada, K. (2013). “Manabu, kangaeru, hanashiau” Torongata yoronchosa: Giron no atarashii shikumi (Deliberative Polling “to learn, think, and talk”: A new system for discussion). Tokyo: Kirakusha.
Sugawara, T. (2013). Torongata yoronchosa (DP) o kangaeru: Chosa kenkyukai hokoku (Discussing Deliberative Polling (DP): Research workshop report). Bulletin of the Japan Association for Public Opinion Research, 111, 60–69.
Takahashi, H. (2011). Denryoku jiyuka: hassoden bunri kara hajimaru nihon no saisei (Electric power deregulation: Revitalization of Japanese society through the separation of power generation and transmission). Tokyo: Nihonkeizai Shimbun Shuppansha.
Wakamatsu, Y. (2010). Kagaku-gijutu seisaku ni shimin no koe o do todokeruka: konsensasu kaigi, shinario wakushoppu, dipu-daiarogu (How to deliver the voice of the public to science and technology policy? Consensus conferences, Scenario Workshops, and Deep Dialogues). Tokyo: Tokyo Denki University Press.
Wynne, B. (2007). Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1(1), 99–110. doi:10.1007/s12280-007-9004-7.
Yagi, E. (2013). Enerugi seisaku ni okeru kokuminteki giron towa nandattanoka (What was the National Discussion on Energy Policy?). Journal of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, 55(1), 29–34.
Yagishita, M. (Ed.). (2014). Tettei togi nihon no enerugi kankyo senryaku (Public debate on the Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment). Tokyo: Sophia University Press.
Yanase, N. (2013). Kokyoseisaku no keisei eno minshuteki togi no ba no jisso: Enerugi-kankyo no sentakushi ni kansuru torongata yoronchosa no jisshi no gaikyo (The implementation of the deliberative forum for public policy making: Report on the National Deliberative Polling on Energy and Environmental Policy Options). Komazawa daigaku hogakubu kenkyu kiyo, 71, 53–186.
Yoshioka, H. (2011). Shimpan Genshiryoku no shakaishi: Sono Nihonteki tenkai (Social history of nuclear energy: The case of Japanese development). Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun Shuppan.
Acknowledgments
The work of this chapter was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 24501085, 26340111.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mikami, N. (2015). Public Participation in Decision-Making on Energy Policy: The Case of the “National Discussion” After the Fukushima Accident. In: Fujigaki, Y. (eds) Lessons From Fukushima. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15353-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15353-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15352-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15353-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)