For more than half a century, Japan approved no new veterinary schools. This article examines the deeper policy failures behind the Kake Gakuen controversy and consumption tax debates, revealing how entrenched regulatory interests distorted open policy discussion and stalled structural reform.

July 13, 2017

In Japan, no new veterinary school had been approved for the past 52 years.
The monthly magazine VOICE, released on the 10th (780 yen), also carries articles that all Japanese citizens and people around the world must read.
All emphasis in the text other than the headings is mine.
Return to orthodox policy debate.
Correcting distorted arguments from the Kake issue to the consumption tax.
Heizo Takenaka.
Policy debates so appalling that one wants to avert one’s eyes have been conducted in the Diet and by parts of the media.
Since the central government reforms of 2001, it was supposed to be an objective to conduct policy debates openly under prime ministerial leadership and thereby improve policy quality.
However, discussions that deviate from the essence of policy and are heavily biased are now being openly carried out in policy forums.
Below, I would like to address the Kake Gakuen issue as a symbol of distorted micro-level structural reform debates, and the consumption tax debate as a symbol of macroeconomic management.
The essence of the Kake issue lies in the persistent attacks by resistance forces against reformists in Kasumigaseki.
The essence of the consumption tax issue is that people in treasury-guarding positions continue to ignore the “Sims theory” that has attracted global attention.
The Kake issue arose within the framework of National Strategic Special Zones, and the author is both the proponent of this system and a private-sector member of the advisory council.
Regarding macroeconomic issues, in May the author himself engaged in a public debate with Professor Sims at a lecture hosted by the Japan Society in New York.
Based on these experiences, I would like to correct the distorted debates.
I hope that the Diet and parts of the media will return as soon as possible to orthodox policy debate.
Why establish new veterinary schools?
When speaking with overseas investors, there is something that uniformly astonishes them.
It is the fact that, in substantive terms, no new medical schools were established in Japan for the past 38 years.
The power of vested-interest stakeholders such as medical associations, so-called tribal politicians closely connected to them, and the bureaucratic organizations—this is truly rock-solid regulation.
At last, a hole was opened in this rock-solid wall through the powerful reform tool of National Strategic Special Zones.
This April, a new medical school was finally established in Narita City, Chiba Prefecture.
It is expected to play an important role as a base for so-called medical tourism.
Yet upon closer inspection, there existed an even more formidable rock-solid regulation.
The issue of establishing new veterinary schools.
In Japan, no new veterinary school had been approved for the past 52 years.
When this is explained, even overseas experts react with astonishment, saying “That’s impossible.”
Over the past 50 years, Japan’s population has increased by 30 percent and its real GDP has grown more than fourfold.
In recent years, global seismic shifts in the life sciences have posed major challenges to the role of veterinary schools.
New diseases such as SARS and avian influenza, which lie at the boundary between humans and animals, threaten the world.
In recent drug development processes, research that utilizes experimental animals—making use of veterinarians’ expertise—has come to be emphasized in the stage between basic research and human clinical trials.
To promote clinical research in regenerative medicine, the importance of preclinical research has increased, revealing a shortage of personnel capable of developing and managing medium- and large-sized animals.
Reflecting these structural changes, the activities of veterinarians within Japan have also begun to change.
Over the past decade, the number of veterinarians working for pharmaceutical companies rather than treating animals has increased by about 50 percent.
Among new graduates of veterinary universities, the number choosing careers in companies has also increased by about 60 percent over the same period.
Nevertheless, with no new schools established for 50 years, competition among researchers has not sufficiently progressed, and the number of veterinary graduates has remained fixed at around 1,000 per year.
How should this rock-solid regulation be broken through?
This is precisely what constitutes orthodox policy debate.