Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia

World Association for Triple Helix and Future Strategy Studies (세계트리플헬릭스미래전략학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Investigating Science-Policy Interfaces in Japanese Politics through Climate Change Discourse Coalitions of an Environmental Policy Actor Network

  • Hartwig, Manuela G. (University of Tsukuba)
  • Published : 2019.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

How is science advice integrated in environmental policymaking? This is an increasingly pertinent question that is being raised since the nuclear catastrophe of Fukushima, Japan, in 2011. Global re-evaluation of energy policies and climate mitigation measures include discussions on how to better integrate science advice in policymaking, and at the same time keeping science independent from political influence. This paper addressed the policy discourse of setting up a national CO2 reduction target in Japanese policymaking between 2009 and 2012. The target proposed by the former DPJ government was turned down, and Japan lacked a clear strategy for long-term climate mitigation. The analysis provides explanations from a quantitative actor-network perspective. Centrality measures from social network analysis for policy actors in an environmental policy network of Japan were calculated to identify those actors that control the discourse. Data used for analysis comes from the Global Environmental Policy Actor Network 2 (GEPON 2) survey conducted in Japan (2012-13). Science advice in Japan was kept independent from political influence and was mostly excluded from policymaking. One of the two largest discourse coalitions in the environmental policy network promoted a higher CO2 reduction target for international negotiations but favored lowering the target after a new international agreement would have been set. This may explain why Japan struggled to commit to long-term mitigation strategies. Applying social network analysis to quantitatively calculate discourse coalitions was a feasible methodology for investigating "discursive power." But limited in discussing the "practice" (e.g. meetings, telephone, or email conversations) among the actors in discourse coalitions.

Keywords

References

  1. Arimoto, T., Kobayashi, N., & Akamatsu, M. (2012). Science and technology policy and synthesiology - Bridging science and values. Synthesiology - English edition, 5(2), 128-133. https://doi.org/10.5571/syntheng.5.128
  2. Arimoto, T., Sato, Y., Matsuo, K., & Yoshikawa, H. (2016). Kagakuteki jogen. 21seki no kagakugijutsu to seisakukeisei [Scientific Advice. Science, Technology, and Policy Making in the Twenty-First Century]. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
  3. Broadbent, J. (1998). Environmental Politics in Japan. Networks of Power and Protest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Broadbent, J., Yun, S.-J., Ku, D., Ikeda, Kazuhiro, Satoh, K., Pellissery, S., . . . Jin, J. (2013). Asian Societies and Climate Change: The Variable Diffusion of Global Norms. Globality Studies Journal Global History, Society, Civilization, 32.
  5. Brueckner, M., & Horwitz, P. (2005). The use of science in environmental policy: a case study of the Regional Forest Agreement process in Western Australia. Sustainablity: Science, Practice, & Policy, 1(2), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2005.11907969
  6. Bulkeley, H. (2000). Discourse Coalitions and the Australian climate change policy network. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2000, 18, 727-748. https://doi.org/10.1068/c9905j
  7. Cabinet Office of Japan. (2016). 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan. Tokyo: Cabinet Office of Japan.
  8. Cairney, P., & Kwiatkowski, R. (2017). How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Communications, 3(37).
  9. Caverni, J.-P., & Peris, J.-L. (1990). The Anchoring-Adjustment Heuristic in an "Information Rich, Real World Setting": Knowledge Assessment by Experts. In J.-P. Caverni, J.-M. Fabre, & M. Gonzalez, Advances in Psychology. Cognitive Biases. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
  10. Chevallier, F., Maksyutov, S., Bousquet, P., Breon, F.-M., Saito, R., Yoshida, Y., & Yokota, T. (2009). On the accuracy of the CO2 surface fluxes to be estimated from the GOSAT observations. Atmospheric Science, 36.
  11. Cook, K. S., & Yamagishi, T. (1992). Power in exchange networks: a power-dependence formulation. Social Networks, 14, 245-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(92)90004-Q
  12. Csardi, G. (2015). R igraph manual pages. Retrieved November 1 2019, from Vertex and edge betweenness centrality: https://igraph.org/r/doc/betweenness.html
  13. Demizu, T. (2006). The Development of Anti-Pollution Technology. In S. Nakayama, & H. Yoshioka, A Social History of Science and Technology in Contemporary Japan Vol. 4 Transformation Period 1970-1979 (pp. 94-107). Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
  14. Foljanty-Jost, G. (2005). NGOs in environmental networks in Germany and Japan: The question of power and influence. Social Science Japan Journal, 8(1), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1093/ssjj/jyi019
  15. Gampfer, R. (2016). Minilateralism or the UNFCCC? The Political Feasibility of Climate Clubs. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3).
  16. Golbeck, J. (2015). Chapter 21 - Analyzing Networks. In J. Golbeck, Introduction to Social Media Investigation. A Hands-On Approach (pp. 221-235). Syngress.
  17. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourses. Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Hajer, M. A. (2006). Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. In M. van den Brink, & T. Metze, Words matter in policy and planning. Discourse theory and method in the social sciences. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Urban and Regional Research.
  19. Hartwig, M., Kobashi, Y., Okura, S., & Tkach-Kawasaki, L. (2014). Energy policy participation through networks transcending cleavage: an analysis of Japanese and German renewable energy promotion policies. Quality and Quantity.
  20. Helm, D. (2012). The Kyoto approach has failed. Nature, 491, 663-665. https://doi.org/10.1038/491663a
  21. Horton, P., & Brown, G. W. (2018). Integrating evidence, politics and society: a methodology for the science-policy interface. Palgrave Communications, 4(42).
  22. Humphreys, D. (2009). Discourse as ideology: Neoliberalism and the limits of international forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5-6), 319-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.08.008
  23. IPCC. (2018). IPCC 30th Anniversary. Retrieved from provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge about climate change and its potential …
  24. Kameyama, Y. (2017). Climate Change Policy in Japan. From the 1980s to 2015. New York: Routledge.
  25. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca, London : Cornell University Press.
  26. Lejano, R., Ingram, M., & Ingram, H. (2013). The Power of Narrative in Environmental Networks. Cambrdige, London: The MIT Press.
  27. Litfin, K. T. (1994). Ozone Discourses. Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
  28. Marsh, D., & Smith, M. (2002, February 21). Understanding Policy Networks: towards a Dialectical Approach. Political Studies, 48(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00247
  29. METI. (2016). Dai 2-bu energuii doukou dai-i-shou: Kokunai enerugii dai-i-setsu enerugii juyou no gaiyou. Retrieved from https://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/about/whitepaper/2017html/2-1-1.html#d211-4-1
  30. Montpetit, E. (2003). Misplaced Distrust. Policy Networks and the Environment in France, the United States, and Canada. Vancoucer, Toronto: UBCPress.
  31. Morgan, J. [. (2017, November 9). Closeness Centrality & Betweenness Centrality: A Social Network Lab in R for Beginners [YouTube]. Retrieved September 17 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqvVbTyEmc
  32. Nature. (2011, December 15). Critical mass. Nature, 480, 291.
  33. NEDO. (2012, June 19). BOCM Feasibility Studies FY2011. Retrieved from https://www.nedo.go.jp/english/other_20120620.html
  34. Nienierza, A. (2014). Die grosste anzunehmende Umbewertung? Eine Frame-Analyse der deutschen Presseberichterstattung uber Kernenergie nach den Reaktorunfallen von Tschernobyl (1986) und Fukushima (2011). In J. Wolling, & D. Arlt, Fukushima und die Folgen. Medienberichterstattung, Offentliche Meinung, Politische Konsequenzen (pp. 31-54). Ilmenau: Universitatsverlag Ilmenau.
  35. NISTEP. (2019). Analytical Report for NISTEP Expert Survey on Japanese S&T and Innovation System 2018 (NISTEP TEITEN survey 2018). Tokyo: National Institute for Science and Technology Library (NISTEP).
  36. OECD. (2015). Scientific Advice for Policy Making. The role and Responsibility of Expert Bodies and Individual Scientists. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, 21.
  37. Okura, S., Tkach-Kawasaki, L., Kobashi, Y., Hartwig, M., & Tsujinaka, Y. (2016). Analysis of the Policy Network for the "Feed-in Tariff Law" in Japan: Evidence from the GEPON Survey. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 15(1), 41-63. https://doi.org/10.17477/jcea.2016.15.1.041
  38. Omoto, A. (2013). The accident at TEPCO's Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: What went wrong and what lessons are universal? Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 731, 3-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2013.04.017
  39. Pielke, Jr. , R. A. (2007). Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science in POlicy and Politics. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy Change and Learning. And Advocacy Coaltion Approach. Colorado: Westview Press, Inc. .
  41. Sato, Y., & Arimoto, T. (2016). Five years after Fukushima: scientific advie in Japan. Palgrave Communication, 2(16025).
  42. Satoh, K. (2014). Nihon no kikou hendou seisaki netto waaku no kihonkousou [The Japanese Climate Change Policy Network: The Relationship between a Triple-Pole structured Organizational Support Network and Policy Output. Environmental Sociology, 20, 100-116.
  43. Schreurs, M. A. (2002). Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany, and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Science Council of Japan. (2013). Seimei 'Kagakusha no kodokihan - Kaitei-ban'. Tokyo: Science Council of Japan.
  45. Suzuki, Z. (2006). Pollution and Environmental Protection. In S. Nakayama, & H. Yoshioka, A Social History of Science and Technology in Contemporary Japan Vol. 4 Transformation Period 1970-1979 (pp. 81-93). Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
  46. Takao, Y. (2016). Japan's Environmental Politics and Governance. From trading nation to EcoNation. London and New York: Routledge.
  47. Thatcher, A., Vasconcelos, A. C., & Ellis, D. (2015). An investigation into the impact of information behaviour on information failure: The Daiichi nuclear power disaster. International Journal of Information Management , 35, 57-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.002
  48. Tobin, P., Schmidt, N. M., Tosun, J., & Burns, C. (2018). Mapping states' Paris climate pledges: Analysing targets and groups at COP 21. Global Environmental Change, 48, 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.002
  49. Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players. How political institutions work. Princeton, New Jersey, New York: Princeton University Press.
  50. UNDESA. (2015). Global Sustainable Development Report. Advance Unedited Version. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
  51. Van Deemen, A. (1997). Coalition Formation and Social Choice. Boston, Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  52. Wuppertal Institut, & Institute of Energy Economics, J. (2018). Intensifying German-Japanese Cooperation in Energy Research, and Policy Recommendations. Wuppertal/Tokyo: GJETC Report 2018.
  53. Young, O. R. (1999). The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes. Causal Connections and Behavioral Mechanisms. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  54. Young, O. R., & Osherenko, G. (1993). Polar Politics. Creating International Environmental Regimes. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.