What Are the Characteristics of PhD-holding Government Officials Responsible for Science and Technology Policy in Japan?

The human resource system of the central government in Japan

Japane’s recruitment examination categories for new graduates and master’s/doctoral degree holders are divided into three types: Examination for Comprehensive Service, Examination for General Service, and Examination for Expertise. Bureaucrats passing the Examination for Comprehensive Service are classified into “first-track”—meaning that is candidate for high-ranking government official position in the central government. Applicants undergo multiple interview sessions conducted by the ministry or agency they wish to join, after passing two written recruitment examinations administered by the National Personnel Authority (NPA). The 2024 Spring Examination for Comprehensive Service included 11 divisions of questions categorized into two groups: humanities and social sciences including political science, legal studies, and economics; and natural sciences including chemistry, physics, engineering, digital, and pharmaceutical sciences. Bureaucrats who passed the written examinations in the field of Natural Sciences and joined the ministry/agency are classified as “technical officials,” meanwhile, those who passed the written examinations in the field of humanities and social sciences are “administrative officials.” The NPA is responsible for conducting recruitment examinations and setting appointments, whereas each ministry or agency determines its planned recruitment numbers through written examinations in the Natural Sciences division and is responsible for managing the placement and promotion of personnel after recruitment. The treatment of bureaucrats recruited in the natural sciences division varies depending on the historical context of each ministry and agency (Fujita 2008).

The present study focuses on the government technical officials responsible for science and technology policymaking and comprehensive coordination at MEXT. Since science and technology policies require specialized expertise, compared with other fields of policy, technical officials contribute more to policymaking than other officers(Huber and Shipan 2002). However, their functional responsibilities and personnel treatment are the same as those of government administrative officials. Furthermore, technical officials’ knowledge of theoretical physics and life sciences, etc. is not as advantageous for their career changes as the medical license held by a technical official at the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The technical officials in the science and technology field at MEXT, who are the focus of analysis in this study, are engaged in a field that requires a high level of expertise; however, the resources for autonomy they obtain from the affiliated organization and society are insufficient.

Administrative expertise

Administrative expertise in the Japanese central government can be classified into three categories (Fujita 2008, 2012, Ito 2012). The first is frontier scientific insight, scientifically justified by specific theoretical frameworks (Akiyoshi 2008, Kono 2009) and sourced from a network of experts. Scientific insight requires continual updates; hence, even once the insight is integrated into the administration, it risks becoming obsolete. The second category is scientific literacy, which integrates experts’ the frontier scientific insight into administrative practice and requires skills in making policies based on evidence. Science literacy, not only among administrative officials, but also among prime ministers and presidents, may also influence policy decisions. Oner quantitative analysis conducted on a sample of 163 countries shows that countries governed by politicians holding a PhD adopted restrictive containment measures faster in the initial stages (but not in the later stages) of the COVID-19 pandemic (Forster and Heinzel 2021). The third category is administrative management, wherein administrative officials oversee the process, coordinate relevant departments, and mobilize support vital to the successful implementation of new policies. This skill includes network biilging, identifying key external persons, dealing with media, and managing subordinates (Miyamoto 2006, Theakstone 1999). This expertise is primarily developed through on-the-job training (OJT) in practical administrative activities.

Administrative officials’ ideological preferences and benefits are key factors in determining whether to make use of this administrative expertise. First, a previous study showed that experts’ ideologies influence their accuracy in predicting the future (Tetlock 2017). Specifically, ideology direction, degree of ideological extremism, and extent of diversity among the factors considered determine the extent of success in forecasting. Apart from this previous study, economic experts disagree regarding the prioritization of conservative Reaganomics or supply side economics. Second, benefits can either promote (Esterling 2004) or suppress the utilization of expertise (Carpenter 2010). Furthermore, in utilizing expertise to realize benefits, two directions exist: encouraging a shift from the current situation and maintaining the status quo (Kume 2009). For instance, in lobbying by interest groups, the social efficiency of policy proposals informed by experts is higher, and they are more likely to be adopted (Esterling 2004). On the one hand, in illustration utilizing the expertise to protect current benefits for stakeholders, some governments like the U.K. and U.S. halted the use of unheated blood products because they put hemophilia patients at risk of HIV infection; on the other hand, the Japanese government continued using them (Fujita 2008). These cases demonstrate that expertise can be utilized to provide benefits. However, in some instances the utilization of expertise is suppressed under conditions of high uncertainty. Previous research on how the FDA cultivated a reputation for competence and vigilance throughout the last century indicated that expertise was deliberately not utilized to avoid the risk of serious disadvantages arising from incorrect predictions (Carpenter 2010).

Skills of PhD-holding Government Officials and hypothesis

First, what kinds of skills do PhDs in Japan possess? Two studies of PhD holders in Japan served as useful references. The first study to verify this was the “Japan Doctoral Human Resource Profiling”², conducted at the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. This survey included questions such as, “What skill and/or capability that you obtained in doctoral course has contributed to your current work?” and used a multiple-answer format to allow the respondents to select all applicable options. The responses to the survey conducted in 2020 indicated that 69.6% of participants answered, “logical reasoning and critical thinking skills,” 30.9% chose “data handling and application skills,” 24.2% selected “skills in identifying and defining problems,” and 20.8% indicated “skills in hypothesis construction and testing.” Next, we focus on “Survey Results to Utilize Doctoral Human Resources at Every Ministries and Agencies”³, conducted by the Cabinet Secretariat, Cabinet Office, and MEXT, and targeting 25 government ministries, agencies, and authorities. Among the 25 governmental entities, 16 had five or more PhD holders. As reported in the survey responses, specialized expertise was rated the highest by 14 ministries and agencies. Next, 11 ministries and agencies were investigated and analyzed. 7 ministries and agencies were logical reasoning skills, 6 ministries and agencies were skills for conducting research, and 6 ministries and agencies were skills for identifying and defining problems. Thus, in both PhD holders’ self-evaluation and evaluation by ministries and agencies, PhD holders have scientific literacy and administrative management skills when considered in light of their administrative expertise.

Previous studies have shown that it is beneficial for bureaucrats to increase resources at the organizational level (Soga 2022, Mabuchi 2012, Niskanen 1971). In the highly specialized field of science and technology policy, it is anticipated that technical officials under a promotion system similar to that of administration officials will apply their specialized knowledge to retain and expand the budget for MEXT. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Data

Regarding policy formulation, we argue that the process is internal to the ministry. In Japan, this is difficult to observe because no official records on the policymaking decision-making process within the department are available (Miyamoto 2006). The existing literature employs interviews (Shiroyama & Hosono et al. 1999, 2002) and questionnaire surveys targeting government officials (Kitamura 2022, Aoki et al. 2019) and was conducted by scholars with prior experience in bureaucracy (Inoue 1981, Tamaru 2000). To test our hypothesis, this study utilized a questionnaire survey that was conducted targeting technical officials responsible for science and technology policy in April 2024.

The questionnaire survey was conducted online, through the Personnel Division of MEXT. The questionnaire items were based on previous studies and approved by the Personnel Division. The survey form was included in an email, to which a request letter from the author was attached, and it was distributed to the participants via the Personnel Division. All responses were anonymous. Among the 78 respondents, 32 held PhDs; the remaining 46 responses were selected by stratified random sampling from the 230 officials with bachelor’s or master’s degrees who joined MEXT between fiscal years 1998 and 2023. The mean age of PhD holders was 38.72 with a standard error of 7.78 and the mean age of officials with undergraduate or graduate degrees was 38.02 years, with a standard error of 7.43.

The survey items were categorized into five sections: (1) the extent to which each stakeholder is important in the processes of comprehensive coordination, (2) perceived importance of evidence, (3) Importance of stakeholders’ support to achieve policy goals, (4) perspectives on policymaking, and (5) perceptions of the quantity and quality of work. Responses were requested in actual numbers, or on a four-point scale.

Research design

Before presenting the results of the regression analysis to test our hypotheses, we analyzed the data using descriptive statistics to confirm the difference between PhDs and other officials. Because the intervals between ranks on a four-point scale were not guaranteed to be equal, in addition to the t-test, a nonparametric Wilcoxon rank–sum test was conducted to identify differences in statistical values. Table 1 shows the methods of analysis based on the statistical values. We provide a comprehensive trend of PhDs and then display the regression estimates. The quantitative analysis was conducted using StataBE 18.

Ethical approval

The questionnaire surveys for this study was not approved by an ethics committee; however, approval was obtained from Personnel Division at MEXT. In addition, all responses were anonymous and included a statement to confirm the respondents’ agreement with the purpose of the survey before answering.

Descriptive statics

The results of the survey are presented in five categories. Responses were recorded using a four-point Likert-type scale; 4 points were assigned to “Strongly Agree,” 3 points to “Agree,” 2 points to “Disagree,” 1 point to “Strongly Disagree.”

Extent to which each stakeholder is important in the processes of comprehensive coordination

We asked about the importance of coordination with the following stakeholders to carry out tasks: the Ministry of Finance, other ministries and agencies, the department within the MEXT, politicians, and related organizations. No differences were identified between officials with and without PhDs for any of these questions.

Perceived importance of evidence

Two items regarding the importance of evidence; the first inquired about the significance of conducting an investigation and analysis of issues and offering ideas for the execution of tasks; the other concerned the importance of expertise in research and analysis. No differences were identified between officials with PhDs and those without for either question.

Importance of stakeholders’ support to achieve policy goals

We asked about the importance of obtaining support to realize policies in a timely and effective manner. Stakeholder choices included the Office of the Prime Minister; Secretariat of the Cabinet/Cabinet Office; Ministry of Finance; other ministries and agencies; local governments, public corporations, public agencies, or independent administrative agencies; industry associations/NPOs/private companies; mass media; and experts/academics from universities.

The test for homogeneity of variance between PhDs (0.64), and the other officials (0.34) was statistically significant at the 5% levelregarding the importance of obtaining support from experts and university academics, as well as from public corporations, public agencies, and independent administrative agencies. The mean response score was 2.84 for the officials with PhDs and 3.15 for other officials. The nonparametric Wilcoxon rank–sum test revealed a significant difference at the 5% level.

Perspectives on policymaking

For the questionnaire item “I feel more fulfilled in formulating new policies than in implementing existing ones,” the mean response was 3.44 for officials with a PhD and 2.85 for other officials. The nonparametric Wilcoxon rank–sum test revealed a significant difference at the 5% level. In addition, for the questionnaire item “I think most policies in which I played a central role in formulating policies were realized,” the test for homogeneity of variance between PhDs (1.43), and the other (0.63) was statistically significant at the 5% level.

Perceptions of the quantity and quality of work

The survey included questionnaire items “I think MEXT adequately manages increased workloads” and “I think I am capable of coping with increased workloads.” Regarding the organizational approach to managing increased workloads, the mean was 1.50 for officials with a PhD and 1.80 for other officials; the t-test revealed a significant difference at the 5% level. In terms of individual coping, the homogeneity of variance test between officials with PhD (0.82) and others (0.40) was statistically significant at the 5% level.

For the questionnaire item “I think I am adequately capable of managing the growing complexity and specialization of operations,” the mean was 2.66 for officials with a PhD and 2.30 for other officials. The nonparametric Wilcoxon rank–sum test revealed a significant difference at the 5% level. Regarding the questionnaire item “I think I am adequately capable of duties requiring foreign language expertise,” the sum of the proportion for “Strongly agree” and “Agree” answered by officials with a PhD was 46.9%, whereas that of other officials was 23.9%. A z-test for the two proportions revealed a significant difference at the 5% significance level.

Hypothesis testing using ordinary least squares (OLS)

Before testing the hypothesis that among the technical officials responsible for science and technology policymaking and comprehensive coordination in MEXT, PhDs make more policies than officials with undergraduate or graduate degrees, we provide descriptive statistics for our dependent and independent variables. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for each variable.

We use the actual response values to the questionnaire item, “Please provide the approximate number of new policies which you played a central role in formulating” as our dependent variable. Our independent variable consisted of whether the officials had enrolled in a doctoral program; we assigned a value of 1 to those who had enrolled in a doctoral program.

Regarding potential confounders, first we controlled for years of service and position, because director general and deputy director level, director and head of office level, and deputy director level have been discussed as important factors that may affect administrative management skills. On the other hand, the deputy directors in the Japanese government are mainly responsible for planning and drafting policies, since senior and middle management bureaucrats are in charge of comprehensive coordination, including obtaining support from politicians. The positions of the officials and chief levels constitute the base categories of dummy variables. Second, we included a dummy variable assigned a value of one to those who had gained academic experience abroad in Law, Policy, and Economic studies to learn the method behind policymaking. Not only the knowledge gained through OJT but also academic approaches may contribute to policymaking.

Finally, we used two questionnaire items in the survey to control for potential confounders regarding the atmosphere prevailing in the office. In response to the questionnaire item “I think that my direct supervisor helps me work comfortably and efficiently,” a score of 4 was assigned to the response “Strongly agree,” 3 to “Agree,” 2 to “Disagree” and 1 to “Strongly disagree.” To operationalize workplace climate, we use the response to the item “I think that my colleagues will cooperate when new tasks arise or when improvements to existing tasks are needed.”

Table 3 displays regression estimates. As expected, the coefficient exhibited positive values and were statistically significant at the 10% level. The estimates from this model supported our hypotheses. Based on the magnitude of the coefficient, the effect of having experience in a doctoral program is approximately the same as that of having academic experience abroad. Excluding the director general and deputy director level, director and head of office level and higher positions are associated with an increased number of policy proposals.

Ethical approval

This study did not involve patients, nor did it use any biospecimens or clinical data.

The Research Integrity Division at Kyoto University confirmed that this study was not subject to the Japanese “Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Biological Research Involving Human Subjects” and did not require review by the ethical review committee.

In addition, the Personnel Division at MEXT approved the questionnaire surveys for this study.