Human resource management for high-ranking officials in central government: case study of the Japanese government.

• Author: Nakamura, Jin
• Position: Report - Statistical data

1. INTRODUCTION

   Unlike the United States and other governments, the Japanese government has rarely used political appointments or competitive examinations to fill any official vacancy. It is common practice for government employees to be recruited through examinations after graduation from universities or colleges, and then start pursuing their career after a certain period of service. Vice-Minister-level government posts are considered to be at the high end of such career paths. Elite bureaucrats, so-called "career government employees," who have taken the Type I National Civil Service examination, which is in effect conducted for executive candidates, are being promoted in rank more quickly than government employees recruited through other types of examinations. For those other administrative "career government employees" sitting specialized examinations in the areas of law, economy, administration, etc. it is considered to take almost the same number of years of service to start climbing the career ladder; although there may be some differences in how long it takes to be promoted to Director-level posts in the main organs of ministries. After experiencing Director-level positions, which are internally regarded as even higher rank posts, such bureaucrats were supposed to be promoted to positions above Deputy Director-General level positions or to be re-employed by government-affiliated organizations or companies after retirement.

   In order to verify this situation, this paper focuses on the years of 1976, 1985 and 2001, and determines if the mechanism of simultaneous promotion works in practice, by analyzing the distribution of the number of years in service of those holding Director-level positions. The top-level administrative bureaucrats were employed by the National Police Agency, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Construction and Ministry of Home Affairs. In addition, we further defined "Director-level positions in their ministries and agencies" as a Director position at the ministry, agency or independent organ where the candidate was employed; it also includes the positions of Counselor or Inspector General specified in the list of affairs under such jurisdiction, but does not include positions at ministries where they were temporarily transferred.

2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

   The objectives of this paper are firstly, to examine the difference in the pace of promotion among ministries. It is assumed that while there may be some variance, "career government employees," who exist across ministries, climb the career ladder at almost the same pace. Of course, it is not clear from the outside whether Director A and Director B in a given ministry are of the same rank, although they may appear externally to hold the same level of Director's position, in fact there is a difference in organizational ranking or under the Public Officials Pay Law. It is even more difficult for an outsider to establish which position is the higher, for example, between Director A with a main organ of a ministry and Director General C with a regional branch or bureau. In reality, if their responsibilities are different from each other, even those who nominally share the same rank, but at two different regional branches of the same ministry, can be ranked quite differently in the hierarchy of administrative career government employees. For example, on average, in local Bureaus of Labor Standards, as well as Regional Police Bureaus, in those organizations serving more urban areas, Director-General positions are often occupied by employees with relatively more years of...