687 



SOME BASIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES 



Japan appeared to have a firmer, more consistent government energy 

 policy deriving from its lack of natural resources. We were told 

 that Japan intends to be successful wtih the light water reactor, 

 the fast breeder reactor, and eventually the fusion reactor. The 

 Japanese approach to the development of fusion contemplates only one 

 device, the Fusion Experimental Reactor (FER) , between JT-60 and a 

 fusion power demonstration reactor (DEMO) . By contrast, the United 

 States contemplates two steps beyond its Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor 

 (TFTR) before a demonstration reactor. The Japanese seem to have more 

 direct industrial consulation and participation in the fusion program 

 than the United States. Japan's electric utilities are more 

 centralized and appear to be more financially sound than those of the 

 United States. There are also well known basic cultural 

 differences — language, numbers of people involved in decision making, 

 and differences in security requirements. 



There is a noteworthy incompatibility between the U.S. and Japanese 

 approaches to large national research programs. The Japanese have an 

 elaborate research coordinating structure within their government that 

 brings to bear all aspects and views of a proposed research program. 

 Decisions are reached by consensus, which involves compromise after 

 all views are expressed. The process is called the "bottom-up" 

 approach to decision making. As a result, there is great difficulty 

 in changing a program, once approved. Rather, the emphasis then 

 shifts to doing the agreed job as well as possible. In contrast, the 

 United States uses a "top-down" approach, in which decisions are made 

 by "top-level advisory committees," government administrators, and 

 Congress with relatively little technical input. The U.S. emphasis is 

 often on diversity of effort with a view to taking advantage of new 

 developments. 



This difference in approaches, in our opinion, need not be 

 resolved; but it must be taken into account in all efforts to achieve 

 cooperation wtih the Japanese. Both approaches have merit and every 

 effort should be directed towards bringing the best of each approach 

 to bear in the proposed joint efforts. Perhaps some middle ground 

 between U.S. fluidity and Japanese rigidity would be best. Although 

 it is clear that actual cooperation can come only after agreement at 

 the highest levels, such action is only a necessary condition, not a 

 sufficient one. 



The program of university research conducted by the Ministry of 

 Education, Science and Culture (Monbusho, after its Japanese acronym) 

 seems less closely integrated with the program goals of the Japan 

 Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) and the Science and 

 Technology Agency (STA) than the counterpart U.S. programs. 



