Contextual factors

 Overview

 Anti-corruption strategy

In terms of coverage of the strategic framework, Japan established strategic objectives for mitigating public integrity risks in public procurement, but not in other areas such as human resource management, public financial management or internal control and risk management.

Strengthening the quality of strategic framework supports one of the central ambitions of the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity: for countries to develop a coherent and comprehensive integrity system, where objectives and priorities are clearly outlined in a strategy that was developed using a large range of evidence to identify integrity risks.

 Corruption risk management and audit

As measured against OECD standards on risk management, which includes internal control and internal audit, Japan fulfils 12% of criteria for regulations and 0% for practice, compared to the OECD average of 67% and 33%, respectively.

In Japan, ministries are responsible for their own internal control and internal audit regulations and practices, and they are not required to report to a central harmonisation unit. Additionally, there is no centralised data on the coverage of internal audit across public organisations.

 Lobbying

As measured against OECD standards on lobbying, Japan does not fulfil any criteria for either regulations or practice, compared to the OECD average of 38% and 35%, respectively. Japan does not have specific legislation covering lobbying activities, and fulfilled none of the criteria regarding practice to tackle corruption risks related to lobbying and undue influence.

 Conflict of interest

As measured against OECD standards on conflict of interest, Japan fulfils 89% of criteria for regulations, and 56% for practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 40%, respectively.

Japan’s regulatory framework establishes that ministers, members of parliament and top-tier civil servants must declare their interests, but not high-ranking judges, and sanctions for non-compliance are proportional to the severity of the offence. In practice, ministers and members of parliament declared their interests according to regulations, but data is not available for top-tier civil servants. These declarations are verified according to a risk-based approach. The National Public Service Ethics Board, the entity monitoring conflict of interest for civil servants, can request ministries and agencies to sanction individuals who fail to comply with conflict-of-interest regulations.

 Political finance

As measured against OECD standards on political finance, Japan fulfils 70% of criteria for regulations and 43% for practice, compared to the OECD average of 73% and 58%, respectively.

In Japan, regulations on political finance include a ban on contributions from foreign states and state-owned enterprises, but anonymous donations under 1000 yen are not forbidden. Parties are also required to submit annual financial reports, which are collected on a single user-friendly platform. Nevertheless, there is no independent body monitoring political finance, as the Ministry of Internal Affairs is responsible for overseeing and publishing parties’ financial reports.

 Transparency of public information

As measured against OECD standards on public information, which includes access to information and open data, Japan fulfils 56% of criteria for regulations, and 58% for practice, compared to the OECD average of 67% and 62%, respectively.

The Digital Agency is the entity responsible for open data policy. It also provides datasets on consolidated legislation, government agendas and minutes of cabinet meetings. Nevertheless, salaries, asset and interest declarations of judges and senior civil servants are collected but not publicly available.