Nihon kishō gyōsei-shi no kenkyū: Tenkiyohō ni okeru kanryōsei to shakai (Building Expertise and Reputation: A History of the Japan Meteorological Agency)

Since the early 2000s, political science research on bureaucracy has largely focused on “organizational reputation” as a concept to explain the high degree of autonomy and behavior of public organizations (Carpenter and Krause 2012: 31). Previously, the rational actor analysis-based principal-agent framework has proven insufficient for this purpose. Organizational reputation, for example, offers are more effective explanation of how organizations respond to threats to their legitimacy. However, studies of Japanese public organizations using bureaucratic reputation theory are still scarce. This book applies reputation theory to analyse from a political science perspective, how the Japan Meteorological Agency has built its organizational reputation, providing valuable insights for the study of bureaucracy.

Organizational reputation is generally defined as an intangible asset that plays an important role in public organizations by enhancing bureaucratic power and autonomy and reducing threats to bureaucratic legitimacy (Carpenter 2001, 2010; Carpenter and Krause 2012). In political science, organizational reputation is analyzed as a shield that protects public organizations from external threats (Bustos 2021: 737). Indeed, public organizations strategically counter threats through reputation management. In this book, Wakabayashi Yu also demonstrates that the Japan Meteorological Agency has actively engaged in reputation management to enhance its organizational reputation.

Wakabayashi’s research is distinctive in that it applies the two value concepts introduced by Porter (1995), “expert judgment” and “mechanical objectivity”, to analyse the reputation management of the Japan Meteorological Agency. “Expert judgment” refers to subjective judgments based on experts’ knowledge, experience, and discretion, while “mechanical objectivity” refers to impersonal judgments based on objective calculations using quantitative methods. According to Porter, when public distrust of a profession or public organization increases, that group of experts strategically acts by leaning toward one of the two. In other words, if society trusts the subjective judgments of the experts, the expert group will opt for actions based on expert judgment. If society trusts impersonal judgments based on objective calculations, the expert group will choose actions based on mechanical objectivity.

To analyse the reputation management of the Japan Meteorological Agency, Wakabayashi uses the above analytical framework but focuses on technical reputation, one of the four dimensions of organizational reputation, because it is reasonable to assume that a public organization engaged in highly specialized technical work would place the most importance on it (Carpenter and Krause 2012: 27). Wakabayashi also adopts a historical approach, detailing the changes in Japan’s meteorological government administration from the late 1880s to the 2010s.

Wakabayashi points out that before and during World War II, the Central Meteorological Observatory, the predecessor of the Japan Meteorological Agency, sought to improve its reputation by focusing on expert judgment. Since the 1950s, however, it has developed reputation management aimed at mechanical objectivity. After the war, the agency became involved in the technological development of weather radar and satellites, which improved the accuracy of weather forecasts. In addition, after the spread of television, people began to receive weather forecasts from television. Visual information, such as weather radar images, contributed greatly to the agency’s improved reputation. Thus, through reputation management focusing on mechanical objectivity, the Japan Meteorological Agency enhanced its postwar reputation.

However, as the agency pursued mechanical objectivity and advanced the mechanization of meteorological observation, private weather companies also became more active. The mechanization of meteorological observation allowed any organization, public or private, to provide uniform weather forecasts. This led to a competitive relationship between the agency and private weather companies. From the late 1990s, in an ironic twist, the agency began to focus again on expert judgment in order to differentiate itself from the private companies and to actively provide them with guidance. In this way, the Japan Meteorological Agency adapted its reputation management approach to changing circumstances in order to maintain its reputation.

Using a historical approach, Wakabayashi convincingly captures how the Japan Meteorological Agency strategically altered its reputation management over time. Reputation is a dynamic concept that can change over time (Bustos 2021: 736). Therefore, public organizations need to engage in ongoing reputation management to maintain the good reputations they have built. They also need to adapt their reputation management approaches according to changing circumstances. This book demonstrates that these principles of organizational behavior also apply to Japanese public organizations. In addition, Wakabayashi’s excellent narrative skills ensure that this book maintains a high standard as a research work on the history of government administration.

However, as Wakabayashi notes, meteorological government administration is not a policy area with high political salience, and public organizations overseeing policy areas with high political salience are more likely to face threats to their autonomy and engage in more complex reputation management. Additionally, scholarship has pointed out that public organizations performing regulatory or redistributive tasks are more likely to face threats to their reputation than those performing service-providing ones (Verhoest et al. 2023: 170–171). Therefore, to further develop research on the reputation management of public organizations, future analyses should target organizations that receive political attention or those responsible for regulatory or redistributive tasks. Examples include nuclear power policy or pandemic public health policy organizations. These organizations likely devote significant efforts to maintaining and enhancing not only their technical reputation but also their moral and procedural reputations.

While the above issues regarding the study of organizational reputation remain, Wakabayashi successfully explains how the Japan Meteorological Agency has acted strategically to enhance its organizational reputation. This book is a must-read for anyone studying Japan’s bureaucracy.

REFERENCES