カテゴリー: Akira Yokoyama

Special Fixed-Sum Cash Benefits (continued)

　The projected cost of the special fixed-sum cash benefits (uniformly 100,000 yen per person) implemented as part of the “Emergency Economic Measures to Cope with the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)”, is 12,734,414 million yen (i.e. about 12.73 trillion yen). (See Note 1).
　Assuming that the tax revenue is 1% of the consumption tax rate (national / local) under the reduced tax rate system is about 2.1 trillion yen (See Note 2), the budget total of the special fixed-sum cash benefits is equivalent to the consumption tax rate of 6 (12.73 ÷ 2.1) %. It will be a budget amount that can lead to a reduction of the consumption tax. The special fixed-sum cash benefits of 12.73 trillion yen and the consumption tax reduction of 12.73 trillion yen (with a tax rate of 6%) are the same in terms of universalist policies that do not limit specific individuals or households. However, the special fixed-sum cash benefits of 12.73 trillion yen without the consumption tax reduction, and the consumption tax reduction of 12.73 trillion yen (with a tax rate of 6%), involve different legislative measures, different speeds of policy implementation and different administrative costs, and different beneficiaries, and this implies different types of a consumption tax system.
　If we assume that the consumption tax rate is a uniform 10% and the basic consumption is 1 million yen per person per year, providing a fixed-sum cash benefit of 100,000 yen means that the consumption tax amount related to the basic consumption will be refunded uniformly. The refund amount is 100,000 yen (10%×1 million yen).　
　In other words, tax payment = tax rate × (annual consumption−basic consumption) = (tax rate × annual consumption) − (tax rate × basic consumption) = consumption tax paid−fixed-sum benefit; so if you consider the proportional consumption tax and the fixed-sum benefit as a set, the set will be a “progressive” consumption (value-added) tax system. “Progressive” means that the higher the annual consumption, the higher the average consumption tax rate (consumption tax payment amount ÷ annual consumption). (See Note 3).
　In this regard, since the fixed-sum cash benefit is a negative poll tax, it is possible to present the “progressive value-added tax”, which is a combination of VAT (value added tax) and a negative poll tax, as a new expenditure tax. (See Note 4).
　On the other hand, the consumption tax reduction of 6% is a proportional consumption tax (VAT) of 4%. Therefore, it is possible that there is a difference in the consumption tax system between providing a fixed-sum cash benefit of 100,000 yen and having a consumption tax reduction of 6%.
　Since this special fixed-sum benefit is a temporary measure, it cannot be considered as a progressive consumption tax system unless it is continued from next year onward. Therefore, we may examine whether we should continue the fixed-sum cash benefit in some way from next year onward, and after the coronavirus crisis has settled down, whether we should consider the redemption of financial resources regarding public bonds for the emergency economic measures like as the reconstruction tax for the Great East Japan Earthquake.

(Note 1) Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “The Special Fixed-Sum Cash Benefits (in Japanese)”.
https://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_seisaku/gyoumukanri_sonota/covid-19/kyufukin.html　
＜Accessed on May 18, 2020＞

(Note 2) “Under the reduced tax rate system, the consumption tax rate increase of 1% is expected to be about 2.04 (or 2.23) trillion yen.” (Y. Baba et al., Consideration on Public Finance in Japan (in Japanese), Tokyo: Yuhikaku, 2017, p.51)
Therefore, we assume that the tax revenue with a consumption tax rate of 1% is about 2.1 trillion yen. However, this tax revenue forecast will depend on the final consumption expenditure of the national accounts, so it will be significantly reduced due to the coronavirus pandemic.

(Note 3) “Progressive” in the term “progressive income tax” means that the higher the annual income is, the higher is the average income tax rate. The difference between a progressive income tax and a progressive consumption tax is whether an individual’s ability to pay (economic power) is considered in terms of income or consumption. Generally, it is said that the consumption tax is regressive because the higher the income is, the lower the ratio of the consumption tax payment to the income, and the regressive effect on income distribution. See H. Kato and A. Yokoyama, Tax System and Tax Politics: How Tax Reform Should Be Done (in Japanese), Tokyo: The Yomiuri Shimbun, 1995, pp. 217-218.

(Note 4) See A. Yokoyama, “Examining a New Expenditure Tax System (in Japanese),” Sozei-Kenkyu (Studies on Taxation), No. 535, pp4-12; A. Yokoyama et al., Modern Public Finance (in Japanese), Tokyo: Yuhikaku, 2009, p.271.

This essay is the English version of No. 147, May 19, 2020 on the Japanese website.

（Author: Akira Yokoyama）

Special Fixed-Sum Cash Benefits

　The “Emergency Economic Measures to Cope with the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)”, the supplementary budget for fiscal year 2020, which includes Special Fixed-Sum Cash Benefits, was established on April 30, 2020. The special fixed-sum cash benefit was decided by the Cabinet on April 20, as follows. “With respect and thankfulness to the people who are engaged in various fields throughout the country including the healthcare field, we must consolidate, unite, and overcome the national crisis of fighting this invisible enemy. For this reason, while paying attention to the prevention of the spread of the disease, the Government will promptly and appropriately support households with a simple mechanism, and uniformly pay out 100,000 yen per person.” (See Note 1), and the recipients of the benefit are those listed in the Basic Resident Register on the recording date (April 27, 2020) (including foreign residents not having Japanese nationality). The beneficiary is the head of the household to which the person belongs.
　The special fixed-sum cash benefit is a modification of the 300,000 yen benefit for households with reduced revenues included under the “Emergency Economic Measures to Cope with the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)”, decided by the Cabinet on April 7. While the 300,000 yen benefit to households with reduced revenue is a support measure for households that are limited to households in need, the special fixed-sum cash benefit is a support measure for households that do not have such a limitation. The difference between the two benefits is the difference between the principles of selectivism and universalism.
Under the current child allowance system, there is in principle an income cap according to the number of dependent relatives, etc., but even if the income cap is exceeded, a monthly amount of 5,000 yen will be paid per child as Special Interim Allowances (See Note 2). This is a policy that is based on selectivism but also has universalism.
Support measures for households in the Emergency Economic Measures to Cope with the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) are based on the universalist policy of special fixed-sum cash benefits, but may require selective policies with additional benefits targeting households who are truly in need as a result of the outbreak of COVID-19. Therefore, just as the 300,000-yen benefit for households with reduced revenues caused a major issue with how to identify and demarcate households with reduced revenues, it is important to establish a clear and rational demarcation standard in selective policies.

(Note 1) Cabinet Office, Japan, “Emergency Economic Measures to Cope with the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)～Thoroughly secure people’s lives and moves toward economic revitalization～” p.30, April 20, 2020 https://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai1/keizaitaisaku/2020/20200420_economic_measures_all.pdf

(Note 2) Cabinet Office, Japan, “The Outline of the Act for Amending Part of the Child Allowance Act”, (Date of Enforcement, April 1, 2012),
https://www8.cao.go.jp/shoushi/jidouteate/pdf/gaiyou_kaisei-en.pdf
Furthermore, according to the “Emergency Economic Measures to Cope with the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)”, support to households with children, a temporary special benefit of an additional 10,000 yen per applicable child, will be paid to households receiving (regular) Child Allowance.

This essay is the English version of No. 143, May 5, 2020 on the Japanese website, but the notes and URLs have been changed. The final date of access to the URLs is January 2, 2021.

（Author: Akira Yokoyama）

New Year’s Day 2021

　This year, although we had New Year’s Day, it is hard to say “Happy” New Year.
At the beginning of the year, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the medical personnel and many others who are still engaged in hard work fighting the menace of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19). Furthermore, I pray that the day will come as soon as possible when those who are experiencing trouble in their daily lives will feel at ease.
　Now is the time for the next generation of young people to think about COVID-19 and others. We have all lived for almost a year in a completely different environment. How did you spend most of your time in the anxious and uncertain environment of COVID-19? If you’ve written your schedule in a notebook, diary, or calendar, please try to measure how many hours you spent in a month or week in 2020. For example, what was the daily hourly average of how you passed your time in April, August, and December 2020? Compare it with the daily average of the way you spent your time in the same month a year previously.
　Please calculate the approximate average time spent on the following three kinds of activities: 1. Average time for physiologically necessary activities (primary activities) such as sleeping, eating, and bathing; 2. Average time for absolutely necessary activities (secondary activities) such as commuting to school or work, schoolwork, housework, childcare, and long-term care; and 3. Average time for activities (tertiary activities) in your free time, which are generally referred to as leisure activities, such as watching television, resting, learning other than at school, self-development, hobbies, entertainment, sports, and dating. (See Note).
　Especially, ask what was the activity that you spent the most time on in the breakdown of the tertiary activities? The spent time on those activities is the key to opening the door to your future. Do not ignore the activity that you devoted your maximum time to, rather cherish it, and think of it as a clue to connect the activity with your individuality, charm, and strength. I would like you to think about how you make use of that activity so that it will help those who are in trouble in their daily lives as a result of COVID-19. It may take 3 to 5 years or more to reach a conclusion about that.
　However, I would like young people to realize for themselves by adopting such a medium- to long-term perspective and by making the most of their individuality, charm, and strengths. I wish you all the best of luck this year as well.

(Note) For the definition of the average time of the primary activity, secondary activity, and tertiary activity here, see the living times outlined in the document entitled “Social Life: Basic Survey” (in Japanese), which is available at https://www.e-stat.go.jp/koumoku/koumoku_teigi/M (Accessed on 2020.12.30)

This essay is the English version of No. 198, January 1, 2021 on the Japanese website.

（Author: Akira Yokoyama）

Information concerning the spread of the novel coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19)

　In Japan as well as in other countries, the effects of the spread of COVID-19 are becoming serious. I think that even young people see various pieces of information in the mass media such as TV, radio and newspapers, as well as on web media and social media etc. through the internet and smartphones. However, how can you be sure that you get really reliable information about such a topic?
　I see the reports in the national newspapers I subscribe to as well as NHK and commercial broadcasters, but my main sources of information are various websites. In particular, I obtain information regarding the primary materials on scientific knowledge and policy responses, including data referred to in various media from websites, as follows: the government of Japan (especially the Prime Minister’s Office, the Cabinet Secretariat, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare), local governments (especially Tokyo, Osaka and Saitama), the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, the Japan Medical Association and WHO (the World Health Organization). Among these, NHK’s “Special Site: Novel Coronavirus”, the Cabinet Secretariat’s “COVID-19 Information and Resources” and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare’s “About Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)” serve as portal sites.
　From the perspective of multicultural coexistence, the website of the Cabinet Secretariat is linked to the English and Chinese pamphlets published by the Prime Minister’s Office, but this is not always sufficient. In this regard, concerning the novel coronavirus, the English and Chinese versions of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare; the English, Chinese, Korean, and easy Japanese editions of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government; and the website of CLAIR (the Council of Local Authorities for International Relations) may be useful for citizens who are not native speakers of Japanese.
　In addition to the above websites, I always read the personal website of Professor Shinya Yamanaka (the Nobel Prize winner) entitled “Shinya Yamanaka’s novel coronavirus information transmission”. In particular, I think it is a must-see for the sections “Information classification according to the strength of evidence”, “5 recommendations” and “What’s new” which are posted on the site.
　Based on the information presented on these websites, I find that I am able to grasp and contemplate the current situation regarding the spread of COVID-19, and making active choices as an individual. Writing this essay is one of those active choices.

(Note) Of the websites referred to in the text, the following can be read in English:
Cabinet Secretariat
https://corona.go.jp/en/
CLAIR,
http://www.clair.or.jp/tabunka/portal/info/contents/114517.php
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare,
https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/newpage_00032.html
National Institute of Infectious Diseases,
https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/2019-ncov-e.html
Osaka Prefectural Government,
http://www.pref.osaka.lg.jp.e.agb.hp.transer.com/kikaku/osaka-corona/index.html
Prime Minister’s Office,
https://japan.kantei.go.jp/
http://japan.kantei.go.jp/ongoingtopics/_00017.html
Saitama Prefectures,
https://www.pref.saitama.lg.jp/foreignlanguage/index.html
Tokyo Metropolitan Government,
https://www.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/tosei/tosei/news/2019-ncov.html#Eng
https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/
WHO, “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Pandemic,”
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

These URLs were accessed on August 28, 2020, and different to those mentioned on the Japanese website.

(Author: Akira Yokoyama)

This essay is the English version of No. 135, April 7, 2020 on the Japanese website.

In commemoration of No.100 of “Everyday Policy Studies (in Japanese)”

　With the support of many people, we were able to celebrate the publication of the 100th essay of “Everyday Policy Studies (in Japanese)”. I would like to express my appreciation to all the forum members who wrote the essays and those who read the essays.
　The aim of the forum is as oultlined on the website, but as the president I have been trying to achieve an additional aim. The stated aim is to educate junior high and senior high school students and other young people so that they will become responsible citizens. Therefore, I hoped that each member could send some useful messages to young people and help achieve this purpose.
　With this in mind, I would like to ask the members to write essays in such a way that allows young people to understand the following: the basic ideas of policy studies, their own thoughts in their daily lives, and the results of their research. Writing for young people to understand as much as possible will help the authors to think about how they should talk about policies and daily lives in order that the next generation will understand their thoughts.
　It may also have the effect of making people ask of themselves “what does one owe to one’s children.” Parents (the adult generations) become aware of themselves as parents only when they have children (the child generations), and it becomes difficult for parents to take actions that are contrary to what children think are correct. Even adults who do not walk across the road on the pedestrian crossing when they are without their children do cross the pedestrian crossing when they are with their children because they are aware that their children are watching. And adults who see the children taking eco-friendly actions such as saving water and saving electricity then start to copy such actions. Therefore, I would like the authors to write essays for these young people to understand.
　Also, I would like the authors to translate each essay published in the “Everyday Policy Studies (in Japanese)” into English, so that they will be able to convey the message to young people all around the world who will play a leading role in the future, not only in Japanese society but also on a global scale.
　In addition, I have a request for those who have read the essays so far. If you have an essay that you would especially like young people to read, please recommend them to read it. Through these efforts, if the readers can carry out such a role, I think that the value of “Everyday Policy Studies” can be further enhanced.
　We therefore look forward to your continued support for the “Everyday Policy Studies” series.

(Author: Akira Yokoyama)

This essay is the English version of No. 100, December 2, 2019 on the Japanese website.

Representative Democracy: Voting and Abstention

　The basis of representative democracy lies in voters casting ballots in elections, but of course not all voters vote. Some voters may abstain in elections by not voting. In the first place, why do voters vote?
　Voters are likely to vote if there is an expected benefit from voting. This is a rational voter hypothesis and she or he will vote if, and only if,:
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　pB – C + D >0
where p is the subjective probability that their vote will affect whether they get the election outcome they want, B is the benefit derived from the election outcome they want, C is the voting cost, and D shows the benefits of voting itself, regardless of the outcome.
　The first term (pB) on the left-hand side of the equation is the benefit of voting as an instrument for influencing the election results, and is called the “instrumental benefit” of voting. On the other hand, the third term (D) on the left-hand side of the equation shows the subjective benefit obtained from expressing support for the preferred candidate or political party, or the subjective benefit obtained from the fulfillment of obligations as a citizen and the maintenance of the democratic system. It is the utility derived from voting regardless of the outcomes, and is said to be the “expressive benefit” of voting. Also, the voting cost (C) is the cost that must be sacrificed to carry out the voting. It consists of not only the transportation cost to go to the voting place, but also the costs of opportunity lost as a result of sacrificing possible benefits that may instead have been gained from work, listening to music, sports, etc. if they hadn’t gone to the voting station.
　For the individual voter, there is almost no situation in which their vote would be decisive for determining the election outcome they want (p≈0), and there is almost no difference in any candidate or political party (B ≈ 0); therefore there is usually no “instrumental benefit ” of voting (pB ≈ 0). And then, they vote if the benefit of the act of voting itself outweighs the cost of voting (D>C), but they will abstain if it doesn’t. This is a cause of abstention. Isn’t it good to abstain? Please think about it.
　If abstentions are not good, how do you think you can reduce the number of abstentions? For example, what about introducing Internet voting or penalizing those who abstain? Or what about conducting social education that emphasizes the importance of elections? Please think about that as well.

(Author: Akira Yokoyama)

This essay is the English version of No. 88, November 5, 2019 on the Japanese website.

Representative Democracy: Quasi-Representative and Pure Representative

　The majority rule mentioned in “One Person One Vote and One Yen One Vote” (No. en3 ) implicitly assumed direct democracy. Let us now consider representative democracy (Note).
　Representative democracy is a system in which members of the parliament, who are elected following an election by the people and residents, and then carry put collective decision-making in parliament on behalf of the people and residents. It can be said that the system has been adopted as a constructive direct democracy because there are too many voters in large societies such as today’s nations and local governments. However, there is also another completely different form of representative concept. This is not the same as constructive direct democracy, but in order to overcome the harmful effect of direct democracy, that is, the so-called mobocracy where representatives completely bow to the wishes of the masses. In this system, elected persons, or good persons, make collective decision-making on behalf of the general public or ordinary people.
　The difference between these two representative systems lies in the relationship between the voters and the members of parliament. The representative system known as constructive direct democracy requires the members of parliament to be merely agents of the voters and to carry out actions that reflect the political will of the voters. This representative system is referred to as a “quasi-representative” system. On the other hand, in the delegation system whereby enlightened selected persons carry out collective decision-making on behalf of the general public, members of parliament are entrusted with a blank sheet of delegation from the voters. The representative based on this idea is called a “pure representative” and is comparable to a “quasi-representative.” It is sometimes said that the quasi-representative is the people’s representative and the pure representative is a representative of the whole nation.
　The electoral system that selects representatives with different aims and meanings has different desirable systems due to the difference in its underlying philosophy. The proportional representation system is the preferred election system for selecting quasi-representatives (people’s representatives), and the single-seat constituency system is the preferred election system for selecting pure representatives (representatives of the whole nation). In reality, a representative democracy is a system that has both quasi-representatives and pure representatives.
　Next time, I will discuss voting and abstention in a representative democracy.

(Note) This essay is based on A. Yokoyama (1998) “Economic Theory of Democratic Democracy” H. Tanaka, H. Mifune, A. Yokoyama, Y. Iijima, Public Economics, Toyo Keizai, Inc., p.196.

(Author: Akira Yokoyama)

This essay is the English version of No. 72, October 1, 2019 on the Japanese website.

Location, Implication, and Ordering

　As mentioned in my essay No. en8 , the policy decision-making of a society has various influences on future generations of the society. Let us consider, for example, the policy decisions made by the Japanese government at the time concerning the Sino-Japanese War that began with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident (also known as the Lugou Bridge Incident) in July 1937, and the Pacific War that began in December 1941 when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The policy decision-making also resulted in a negative legacy for the post-war Japanese generations who had no involvement in the Sino-Japanese or Pacific Wars.
　This is an example of the externality of policy to future generations, like the externality of the measures against global warming that we considered previously, and can be called “intertemporal externality of policy.”
　What is important when comprehensively researching policies is how to define the location, implications, and ordering in identifying societies, cultures, history, social problems, policies, and people in a space-time universe composed of a time axis and a space axis. As a person with Japanese nationality today, how each person defines the location, implications, and orderliness regarding the historical matters of the Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War may change human activities that try to make the present-day Japan a “better society”. Not all Japanese have enough information about these wars. If the cost is greater than the benefit by weighing the benefits and costs of obtaining additional information, then no further information will be acquired and information will be lacking. This situation is called “rational ignorance” in the literature of public choice that analyzes political processes from an economic point of view.
　Historical experts, governments, schools and the media in Japan and abroad have provided information on the Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War to people in a rational ignorance situation. However, the information is just the particular information selected from the particular window of the information provider. Based on such information, each person defines the location, implication, and orderliness regarding the Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War. Location, implications, and orderliness regarding not only war but also the subject of consideration can be defined as follows.
Location makes the matter clear in a categorized category and identifies its positional relationship. Implications give the matter a narrative meaning from a particular perspective. Ordering is to prioritize the activities to be carried out on a topic based on the location and implication of the matter.

(Author: Akira Yokoyama)

This essay is the English version of No. 58, September 3, 2019 on the Japanese website.

How to Resolve the Externalities of Policy

　Public policies implemented in a country or local government may have a negative effect on some people and populations, or may have a positive or negative effect on other public policies, or have a positive or negative effect on other countries or local governments. It can have a positive or negative effect on future generations that have not yet been born. These effects are termed “externalities of policy.”
　If there is a negative impact on some people or residents, it will be an applied problem of what was described in “one vote per person and one yen per vote” (essay no. 7). In addition, the reason why one public policy can have a positive or negative effect on another public policy is that there is a complementarity or competition between the policies, or there are commonalities or some relationship between the factors that cause the two policy issues. Examples of public policies that can have a positive or negative effect on other countries or local governments or future generations include policies such as global warming countermeasures and energy policies.

　Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning fossil fuels cause global warming and result in economic losses.

　Given the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global warming measures to reduce CO2 emissions in one country (local government) have a positive effect on other countries (local government) and future generations. This positive effect also includes the mutual impact of national and local governments. On the other hand, energy policies that result in increasing CO2 emissions have a negative effect.
　Regarding the externalities of policies between local governments (horizontal externalities) and the externalities of policies between the government and local governments in the country (vertical externalities), negotiations between the parties will be needed. The problem may be solved by the politics of the government, or by the courts of justice. On the other hand, regarding the externalities of policy between nations, that is, international ones, since there is no World Government, the problem may be solved through bilateral and multilateral negotiations (diplomatic negotiations). Alternatively, the problem may be solved by the International Court of Justice and other international courts as well as by the power of economic sanctions and military action.
　However, the problems related to the negative externalities of policy that impact on future generations cannot be negotiated between the current and future generations, and it is therefore necessary to consider how the current generation will solve them.

(Author: Akira Yokoyama)

This essay is the English version of No. 45, August 6, 2019 on the Japanese website.

A Green Person and a Blue Person

　In a graduate school called the “Graduate School of Policy Studies” which was first established in Japan more than 20 years ago, I once gave my students a report assignment titled “A Green Person and a Blue Person.” After that, I gave the same assignment to my students in undergraduate lectures in my faculty and in graduate lectures at a Graduate School of Policy Sciences in Kansai that had no faculty, and conveyed the true charm of comprehensive policy studies to the students. The report assignment was as follows.

　”In a certain society, a green person proposes that the members go to the right whereas a blue person suggests that they should go to the left, and then the society took the right path according to what the green person said. Next, enumerate the situations in which such a phenomenon might occur and consider the policy implications.”

　The contents of the reports of the students at that time, including graduate students, were extremely diverse, with various considerations added, and were very suggestive. I would like young readers, including middle and high school students, to think about the assignment by themselves first.
　The reason why this phenomenon occurs can be considered as follows: (1) Most of the members of the society were green people. (2) The green person was a legally authorized representative. (3) The green person was the supreme leader of the dominant religion. (4) The green person was considered beautiful from the aesthetic viewpoint of society. (5) The green person provided scientific evidence for the proposal. (6) In the light of past behavior, social confidence in the green person was higher than in the blue person. (7) The right path proposed by the green person gained more votes (the result of one vote per person). (8) The right path proposed by the green person had a greater net benefit to the society as a whole (the result of one yen and one vote). (9) The right path seemed to be easier to walk along than the left. (10) The green person’s speech was better than the blue person’s. And so on (including the overlapping of the above factors).
　Even if the blue person’s discourse was correct from a one-off scientific basis, when the blue person was thought of as a “wolf boy” based on past behavior, the scientific evidence alone would not be enough to cause the society to change. Furthermore, even if the blue person could say what is really correct, it is also true that the collective decision often depends on the feelings of those who just don’t want to accept anything the blue person says.
　From these above points, it seems necessary to consider the concept that “policy is a human matter.”

(Author: Akira Yokoyama)

This essay is the English version of No. 32, July 2, 2019 on the Japanese website.