Policy Evaluation Report(Summary)

“FY 2004 Policy Evaluation Report”
(Summary)

June 30, 2005
Ministry of Finance

FY 2004 Policy Performance Evaluation Report

Of the 42 “policy goals” (formulated on March 31, 2004) established for FY 2004, the performance of policies for 39 goals were evaluated.

(Note

) The evaluation report for the remaining three goals that are under the authority of the National Tax Agency (2-2, 2-3 and 2-4) will be separately formulated and released by around the end of September of this year because the business year of the Agency is from July through June of the following year.

The evaluation was made as follows in accordance with the “Basic Plan on Policy Evaluation” by the Ministry of Finance.

) The following four viewpoints were adopted as the criteria to evaluate multiple aspects of the policy for each goal:

a.	the degree of accomplishment of the goal in light of indices;
b.	whether the process of administrative operations for accomplishing the goal (the means and procedures of the measures/activities) was appropriate, effective and efficient;
c.	whether the analysis of the results (especially, identification of what was wrong when the goal could not be accomplished) was precisely made; and
d.	whether useful proposals were made concerning improvement of the policy itself or improvement of the operations of the policy evaluation system.

) The policies were evaluated on each of the above criteria by using phrase patterns. In addition, qualitative descriptions of “reasons for evaluation decisions” were given.

) Furthermore, with the aim of ensuring the objectivity of the evaluation and raising its quality, the evaluation was discussed and reviewed by the Council on the Policy Evaluation in the Ministry of Finance (chaired by NISHIMURO Taizo, chairman of the Board of the Tokyo Stock Exchange,Inc.).

Outline of evaluation results

) The results of evaluation on each of the four criteria are roughly as follows.

a.	With regard to the “degree of accomplishment,” no goal was “accomplished,” 20 goals were under the status of “there was considerable progress toward accomplishment,” 16 goals were under the status of “there was progress toward accomplishment,” and three goals were under the status of “there was a degree of progress toward accomplishment.” No goal was under the status of “there was no progress toward accomplishment.”
b.	The “process of administrative operations” was “appropriate” for 27 goals, “largely appropriate” for 11 goals, “rather inappropriate” for no goal and “inappropriate” for one goal. The process was “effective” for 19 goals, “largely effective” for 19 goals, “rather ineffective” for no goal and “ineffective” for one goal. The process was “efficient” for 21 goals, “largely efficient” for 17 goals, “rather inefficient” for no goal, and “inefficient” for one goal.
c.	The “analysis of the results” was “precise” for four goals, “largely precise” for 35 goals, “rather imprecise” for no goal and not done for no goal.
d.	With regard to “proposals of improvement measures,” “useful proposals were made” for 31 goals, “some proposals were made” for seven goals, and “no proposal was made” for no goal. With regard to “improvement measures for the operations of the policy evaluation system,” “useful proposals were made” for nine goals, “some proposals were made” for two goals and “no proposal was made” for no goal.

The “reasons for evaluation decisions” and the “comments” by the Council on the Policy Evaluation in the Ministry of Finance are given on the “executive summary table of evaluation comments.”
　

From this fiscal year, the “summary version” of the policy performance evaluation report was prepared for informing the people of the policies subject to the evaluation in an easy-to-understand form.
　

II.

FY 2004 Comprehensive Evaluation Report

The Ministry of Finance has subjected “the present state and problems of Japan’s public finance” to a comprehensive evaluation in order to provide the basis for discussions toward the fiscal structure reform since the policy evaluation was introduced in FY 2001. The comprehensive evaluation report has summarized the comprehensive evaluation results.

(Note

) The comprehensive evaluation is a method to comprehensively evaluate a specific theme in detail from various angles to find out the effects of a policy and provide diverse information that contributes to solving problems.

The comprehensive evaluation report analyzes the structure of Japan’s public finance now in a difficult situation and the people’s benefits and contributions, gives considerations to budget estimates and proposals made by the Fiscal System Council, and comes up with a general conclusion that Japan must proceed with a balanced reform of outlays and revenues to secure the sustainability of public finance. On the specific themes of local public finance, social security and public works, the report provides deep analyses and puts future desirable directions in order. Its concluding statement makes clear that the Ministry of Finance will repeatedly provide public finance information in forms that are as easy as possible to understand and will implement communications with the people on public finance.
　

III.

FY 2004 Project Evaluation Report

The Three-Year Program for the Promotion of Regulatory Reforms (Cabinet decision on March 19, 2004) provides that each government agency shall experimentally conduct the regulatory impact analysis as from FY 2004. Based on the provision, the Ministry of Finance has conducted a project evaluation regarding “the application of new conditions for permission to tobacco retailers that do not annex vending machines to their shops in order to help prevent juveniles from smoking.”

(Note1

) The project evaluation is a method to evaluate a specific administrative operation before its implementation and examine the operation during and after its implementation to provide information that contributes to the adoption or selection of administrative operations.

(Note2

) The regulatory impact analysis, or RIA, specifies ① the details and purposes of regulations, ② the expected effects of the regulations, ③ the anticipated burdens of the regulations, ④ the comparison between the regulations and their alternatives, and ⑤ timing for review. The RIA is subjected to public comments for a certain period of time along with draft regulations.