1．Awareness of the Issues and Fundamental Perspectives

１）As the government advances the development of public services utilizing digital technologies, it is essential to promote data utilization aimed at addressing a wide range of societal challenges—such as social welfare, employment, regional revitalization, and sustainability. This includes the improvement and use of existing statistical data and the promotion of evidence-based policymaking (EBPM). However, in many cases, policy planning still proceeds without sufficient data being presented.

２）Government data utilization can generally be categorized into the following two types:

a) Analytical Use – Utilizing data to identify policy issues, formulate policies, and evaluate policy effectiveness.

b) Procedural Use – Linking data across administrative agencies to enhance the convenience of administrative services, such as minimizing the burden of applications and procedures, and preventing errors in data linkage and identification (*1).

While discussions have primarily focused on individual procedures and the practical aspects of b) Procedural Use, there has been insufficient debate on a) Analytical Use. However, considering that a) Analytical Use serves as a foundational element for digitalization and broader data utilization in society, it is imperative to advance discussions on this aspect without delay. Accordingly, this proposal focuses on a) Analytical Use.

３）With regard to the analytical use of data, it is expected that the government can conduct more detailed analyses and estimate causal or correlative relationships by utilizing not only aggregated statistics but also microdata. Furthermore, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing public expectation that the government will make appropriate use of various types of data held by private-sector entities, such as mobile phone location data and records of consumption and payment.

４）On the other hand, fundamental issues surrounding data utilization remain unresolved. Within the government, various types of data exist—ranging from pre-aggregated data such as individual responses to surveys and statistical forms, to operational records and application data. However, rules governing the handling of such data, the organizations responsible for ensuring compliance, data governance structures, and supporting systems are neither sufficiently developed nor standardized (*2).

５）As a result, even within a single ministry or agency, data is often managed and operated in a fragmented and overly cautious manner by individual departments or sections, preventing effective data utilization. Cross-agency data use, collaboration between the national and local governments, and the acquisition and use of private-sector data remain limited to sporadic cases.

*1 A typical example is the “once-only principle” under the government’s digital principles. Building on the discussions held by the Temporary Administrative Investigation Committee on Digital Policy, it is hoped that the successor body—though not clearly defined in publicly available information as of the time of this proposal—will steadily advance its examination of base registries.

*2 While laws such as the Statistics Act, the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, and the Public Records and Archives Management Act are in place, there is no integrated framework of rules, governance, and systems that enables the advancement of data utilization while taking into account considerations from various perspectives, including personal information and trade secrets.

See: Research Report on Data Development for Agile Policy Processes, INTAGE Research Inc. (March 2023), commissioned by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

https://www.meti.go.jp/meti_lib/report/2022FY/000186.pdf

２．Direction of Response

In order to promote the analytical use of data as discussed in 1) and 3) above, as well as the utilization of data collected and generated by the government as described in 4), and thereby address social issues and enhance industrial competitiveness, the government must first advance the development of rules, organizational structures, data governance, and systems for data utilization.

In doing so, the initial focus should be placed on “future” data generated after the formulation of a government-wide strategy. This includes examining and reforming business processes related to the collection and generation of data, its storage, information linkage for government-led use, and analytical utilization.

In all these areas, it is essential to incorporate the perspective of agile governance—ensuring that data governance, systems, and operational frameworks can be flexibly reviewed in light of social and technological changes. Such preparation must include not only initial system design but also continuous improvements and policy adjustments after implementation.

１）Establishing Cross-Governmental Data Governance

a) The government should begin by identifying areas where cross-agency efforts can be undertaken based on clearly defined legal foundations—such as the secondary use of individual-level data (microdata) within administrative organizations under the Statistics Act—and systematically organize approaches to data utilization, the development of regulatory frameworks, and data governance across the government.

b) In the medium term, it will be necessary to establish a cross-governmental governance framework that also covers operational records collected under individual laws, as well as the results of surveys conducted outside the scope of laws such as the Statistics Act.

２）Development of Databases and Analytical Infrastructure

a) Based on the outcomes of the above-mentioned efforts to organize data governance, it is necessary to develop databases and analytical infrastructure capable of appropriately storing and handling various types of data.

b) Rather than aiming for a fully completed system from the outset, it is more appropriate to adopt an incremental approach—beginning with a limited, trial-based implementation and gradually expanding its scope.

３）Establishing a Framework to Oversee and Advance These Initiatives, and Implementing Administrative Reforms

a) A clear framework should be established to promote data utilization and related administrative reforms—such as appointing a Chief Data Officer (CDO) for the government, Deputy CDOs, and CDOs (or equivalent offices) within each ministry and agency.

b) As securing human resources is fundamental to these activities, the recruitment, placement, and treatment of the necessary personnel should be thoroughly reconsidered.

c) The government must examine and implement reforms in business processes to ensure the proper collection, management, and use of data. The cross-governmental data governance outlined in 1), and the development of databases and analytical infrastructure described in 2), should be carried out based on the principles established through such administrative reforms.

d) Even in the case of commissioned research projects, it can take several months from securing the budget to actual implementation. Therefore, a framework must be put in place that enables timely acquisition and analysis of data from multiple perspectives.

While advancing these initiatives, it is also essential to develop clear and relatable use cases that communicate the benefits of data utilization to the public and promote broader understanding of its value and significance. Many government documents are perceived as difficult to understand—particularly those that rely heavily on schematic diagrams—and efforts must be made to effectively convey key messages, even to those who do not read government documents directly.

Furthermore, the development of such organizational structures, data governance, and systems is also a prerequisite for the procedural use of data and for realizing push-style administrative services. Recognizing that appropriate data utilization is central to digital governance and administration, the government must pursue administrative reforms centered on data.

３．Other Challenges and Issues (Future Outlook)

１）Establishing a Lifecycle Management Framework for Statistics and Data

a) While the importance of continuity in statistics and data goes without saying, this does not simply mean continuing the same surveys over time. It is necessary to develop a system that manages statistics and data in a manner suited to their intended use—for example, by revising survey methods or items in response to changing social conditions.

b) In establishing a framework to oversee and promote government initiatives, it is also necessary to consider how the government should organize its structure for promoting Evidence-Based Policymaking (EBPM), including the management of this issue.

２）Establishing Mechanisms and Rules for the Use of Privately Held Data

a) The development of data governance and systems within the government, as discussed in this proposal, serves as a prerequisite for appropriately and securely utilizing data provided by the private sector, based on a clear legal framework for data acquisition.

b) Furthermore, with respect to data held by private-sector entities, it is necessary to examine legal and regulatory issues under the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (*3), legal grounds for government collection and use both within and beyond the intended purposes of private entities, and develop model agreements (such as non-disclosure agreements that can be swiftly executed between the government and private companies, taking cues from typical contracts used between private parties), as well as the necessary internal regulations. Efforts must also be made to gain the understanding of users of private services.

c) In addition, it is important to clarify and address issues related to privately held information that go beyond trade secrets and personal information, and to establish rules that enable the government to utilize such data in a stable and consistent manner.

３）Effective Visualization of Data

a) Visualization of data and analytical results is essential to clearly demonstrate the usefulness of data utilization. Efforts should be made to advance data visualization, taking cues from existing examples such as the Digital Agency’s Policy Data Dashboard and the City of Yokohama’s Fiscal Transparency Dashboard.

b) In particular, when developing databases, it is beneficial to design and build data formats and functions with dashboard-style displays in mind.

c) One case introduced in government discussions involves the U.S. federal government requiring state governments to allocate more than 75% of grant funding to evidence-based programs when distributing funds through private organizations. Similar policy-based support should be considered as part of incentive design to promote Evidence-Based Policymaking (EBPM) (*4).

*3 While it would be beneficial to establish legal provisions that ensure accountability on the part of both the government and private-sector entities, challenges under the Act on the Protection of Personal Information—particularly those concerning the balance between data utilization and the protection of personal information—are also under examination and will be addressed in a separate paper.

*4 "Examples of EBPM Overseas and Compilation of Evidence Resources," presented at the 1st Meeting of the EBPM Advisory Board of the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy’s Committee for Integrated Economic and Fiscal Reforms, Cabinet Office (October 27, 2020).

https://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai-shimon/kaigi/special/reform/ab1/20201027/shiryou5.pdf

４．Conclusion

This proposal reflects discussions that have been ongoing within the Policy Research Institute. It has been published at this time in light of the government’s recent announcement to advance digital administrative and fiscal reform, and the decision to establish the “Council for Digital Administrative and Fiscal Reform.” The purpose of this proposal is to raise key issues for discussion.

Going forward, based on developments in discussions at the above-mentioned council or other relevant forums, the Institute will consider presenting more specific recommendations as necessary.

Contact Information

For general inquiries regarding this proposal, please contact:

Atsumi & Sakai

Policy Research Institute

Email: public-inst.contact@aplaw.jp

(Published on October 10, 2023)